Presentation alise2016 sutton
-
Upload
sarah-sutton -
Category
Education
-
view
79 -
download
0
Transcript of Presentation alise2016 sutton
![Page 1: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Awareness and use of altmetrics among LIS scholars and faculty
Sarah W. Sutton, Ph.D.Rachel Miles, MLS
January 6, 2015ALISE Annual Conference
![Page 2: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Abstract
Altmetrics measure the impact of scholarship via mentions in social media and other non-traditional venues. For LIS faculty, altmetrics are also a new area for research. The focus of this presentation is the results of a survey of LIS scholars’ awareness and use of altmetrics.
![Page 3: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Outline
• A little bit about altmetrics– Recent literature– LIS faculty awareness
• The study– Who, what, how, when?– Limitations
• Results
![Page 4: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
What is the level of LIS scholars’ and faculty awareness of altmetrics?
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
12.34%
24.68% 24.03%
32.47%
6.49%
1 - never heard of them 2 3 4 5 - I'm an expert
![Page 5: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The literature from 2015: Efficacy and use of metrics
• In academic libraries– Suiter and Moulaison (2015) – Booth and Hendrix (2015)
• Information policy– De Groote, Shultz, and Smalheiser (2015)
• Influential altmetrics– Bornmann (2015)– Zahedi, Costas, and Wouters (2015)
• Spurious metrics– Gutierrez , Beall , and Forero 2015– Davis, 2015
![Page 7: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The literature from 2015: Explanations and definitions
• Criticism– Gaming– Correlation with citations– Non-academic social media mentions
• Benefits– Non-article research output– Replacing JIF– Measuring attention from the general public(Roemer & Borchardt, 2015)
![Page 8: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The literature from 2015
• Related LIS faculty surveys– Peekhaus & Proferes (2015)– Syn and Oh (2015)
• Developing metrics: Relative Citation Ratio – Hutchins, Yuan, Anderson, and Santangelo (2015)
![Page 9: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The Survey
• Based on Sutton and Miles. (2015)• Surveygizmo.com • 2,312 invitations sent, 159 responses received• 3 weeks, 1 reminder• 25 – 30 questions• ~ 25 minutes to complete
![Page 10: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Limitations & Criticism
• Response rate = 6.88%• No “Goodness of Fit”• Anonymity• Part-time faculty• No research
![Page 11: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Variables
• Appointment (full time, part time)– Full time teaching appointment: teaching area – Full time teaching appointment: research area
• Tenure• Years of teaching • Academic status (assistant, associate, full,
emeritus)
![Page 12: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Familiarity with altmetrics by appointment type
1 - never heard of
them
2 3 4 5 - I'm an expert
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Full time (n=111)Part time (n=43)
![Page 13: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Familiarity with altmetrics by tenure track status
1 - neve
r heard
of them 2 3 4
5 - I'm
an exp
ert0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Tenure track (n=97)Non-tenure track (n=11)
![Page 14: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Familiarity with altmetrics by years teaching
< 1 year (n=10)
1 - 5 years (n=51)
6 - 10 years
(n=34)
11 - 20 years
(n=30)
> 20 years (n=28)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
1 - never heard of them2345 - I'm an expert
![Page 15: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Familiarity with altmetrics by years of teaching
1 - never heard of
them
2 3 4 5 - I'm an expert
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
>=5 years (n=61)<= 6 years (n=92)
![Page 16: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Distributions of faculty by years teaching
ALL (n=155) Part-time (n=43) Full-time (n=112)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Less than one year1 - 5 years6 - 10 years11 - 20 yearsMore than 20 years
![Page 17: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Familiarity with multiple metrics
1 - never heard of them 2 3 4 5 - I'm an expert0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
![Page 18: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Other metrics mentioned• None, 10• Google Scholar Metrics, 8• Qualitative measures of impact (e.g. who is saying what) , 6• Aggregations (e.g. Altmetric.com, Impact Story,
Academia.edu), 4• SciMago, 3• Research Gate, 2• G-index, 2• Eigenfactor, 2• Books sold/library holdings , 2
![Page 19: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Other metrics mentioned once
• Scientometrics• Epistemetrics• Entitymetrics• M-quotient• SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper)
![Page 21: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
References & BibliographyBooth, H., A. & Hendrix, D. (2015). Libraries and institutional data analytics: Challenges and opportunities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 695–699. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.001 Bornmann, L. (2015a, March 10). How much does the expected number of citations for a publication change if it contains the address of a specific scientific institution? A new approach for the analysis of citation data on the institutional level based on regression models. Retrieved from http://figshare.com/articles/How_much_does_the_expected_number_of_citations_for_a_publication_change_if_it_contains_the_address_of_a_specific_scientific_institution_A_new_approach_for_the_analysis_of_citation_data_on_the_institutional_level_based_on_regression_models/1330139 Bornmann, L. (2015b, March 13). Overlay maps based on Mendeley data: The use of altmetrics for readership networks. Retrieved March 13, 2015, from http://figshare.com/articles/Overlay_map_for_Science_Nature_PNAS/1334179 Bornmann, L. (2015c, March 20). Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research: A case study using data from PLOS and F1000Prime. Retrieved from http://figshare.com/articles/Usefulness_of_altmetrics_for_measuring_the_broader_impact_of_research_A_case_study_using_data_from_PLOS_and_F1000Prime/1344583 Davis, P. (n.d.). Knockoffs erode trust in metrics market. Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/03/10/knockoffs-erode-trust-in-metrics-market/ De Groote, S. L., Shultz, M., & Smalheiser, N. R. (2015). Examining the impact of the National Institutes of Health public access policy on the citation rates of journal articles. PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0139951. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139951
![Page 22: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
References & BibliographyDhlman, A. K. (2015). Bibliometrics to altmetrics: Changing trends in assessing research impact. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 35(4), 310–315. Ding, Y., Song, M., Han, J., Yu, Q., Yan, E., Lin, L., & Chambers, T. (2013). Entitymetrics: Measuring the impact of entities. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71416. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071416 Gutierrez, F. R. S., Beall, J., & Forero, D. A. (2015). Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays, n/a–n/a. http://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500011 Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. http://doi.org/10.1038/520429a Hutchins, B. I., Yuan, X., Anderson, J. M., & Santangelo, G. M. (2015). Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A new metric that uses citation rates to measure influence at the article level. bioRxiv, 029629. http://doi.org/10.1101/029629 Look out for Bogus Impact Factor Companies. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/08/06/bogus-impact-factor-companies/ Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2015). Improvements in Google Scholar Citations are for the summer: Creating an institutional affiliation link feature. arXiv:1509.04515 [cs]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.04515
![Page 23: Presentation alise2016 sutton](https://reader036.fdocumento.com/reader036/viewer/2022081605/58f13be21a28ab06338b45d9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
References & BibliographyPeekhaus, W., & Proferes, N. (2015). How library and information science faculty perceive and engage with open access. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 640–661. http://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515587855 Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2015). Issues, controversies, and opportunities for altmetrics. Library Technology Reports, 51(5), 20–30. Suiter, A. M., & Moulaison, H. L. (2015). Supporting scholars: An analysis of academic library websites’ documentation on metrics and impact. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(6), 814–820. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.09.004 Sutton, S. W., & Miles, R. (2015, September). Using alternative metrics for collection development. Presented at the Kansas Library Association / Missouri Library Association Joint Conference, Kansas City, MO. Syn, S. Y., & Oh, S. (2015). Why do social network site users share information on Facebook and Twitter? Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 553–569. http://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515585717 Wasserman, M., Zeng, X. H. T., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2015). Cross-evaluation of metrics to estimate the significance of creative works. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(5), 1281–1286. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412198112 Zahedi, Z., Costas, R., & Wouters, P. (2014). How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of “alternative metrics” in scientific publications. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1491–1513. http://doi.org/http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-014-1264-0