1. Altmetrics: What Good are They to
Academic Libraries?
Sarah W. Sutton
Kanas Library Association – College & University Libraries Section
Spring Conference 2014
Emporia State University
May 21, 2014
2. Transitions in scholarly communications
What are altmetrics?
Advantages and disadvantages
Uses in academic libraries
Objectives
4. Alternative metrics
Article-level
Alterative to Journal Impact Factor, H-Index
Proxy for importance? Impact? Attention?
Measure of quality?
What are altmetrics?
5. Journal Impact Factor (JIF):
2008 2-year journal impact factor =
the number of times the articles
published in a journal in 2006 and 2007,
were cited by journal articles during
2008
-- Divided by –
the total number of "citable items"
published by that journal
in 2006 and 2007
What are altmetrics?
H-Index:
6. Publishers:
Wiley
Nature
PLoS
Frontiers
Biomed Central
Springer
Elsevier
Where can I get them?
7. Aggregators
PLoS
ImpactStory
Altmetric
PlumAnalytics
ResearchGate
CitedIn
ScienceCard
ReaderMeter
PaperCritic
Where can I get them?
9. Advantages
New insights in impact
Based on open data
Speed
Diversity of sources
Advantages & Disadvantages
10. Disadvantages
Too many variations; uncontrolled
“Gaming”
Bias
Establishing standards
Advantages & Disadvantages
11. Big data
Research impact
Collection development
Marketing
Return on investment (ROI)
Grants & funding
Ebooks
Open Access
Use in academic libraries
12. …more research is needed
One size fits all?
Triangulation
Bridging the gap
Establishing standards
A word of caution…
13. Questions? Comments?
Sarah W. Sutton, Ph.D.
School of Library and Information Management
Emporia State University
ssutton3@emporia.edu
Slides:
14. Adie, E., & Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion
and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11–17.
Article-Level Metrics: An ill-conceived and meretricious Idea. (2013). Scholarly Open Access.
Retrieved from http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/08/01/article-level-metrics/
Chamberlain, S. (2013). Consuming article-level metrics: Observations and lessons.
Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 4. doi:10.3789/isqv25no2.2013.02
Crotty, D. (2014). Altmetrics: Mistaking the means for the end. The Scholarly Kitchen.
Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/05/01/altmetrics-mistaking-the-
means-for-the-end/
Ebsco Information Sevices. (2014). PlumTM Analytics Becomes Part of EBSCO Information
Services. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from
http://www.ebscohost.com/newsroom/stories/plum-analytics-becomes-part-of-ebsco-
information-services
Bibliography
15. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials
Review, 39(1), 56–61.
Luther, J. (2014). Altmetrics boosted by EBSCO’s acquisition of Plum Analytics. The Scholarly
Kitchen. Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/02/05/altmetrics-boosted-
by-ebscos-acquisitions-of-plum-analytics/
Konkiel, S. (2013). Altmetrics: A 21st-century solution to determining research quality.
(Online Searcher, 37(4), 11–15.
Liu, J., & Adie, E. (2013). Five challenges in altmetrics: A toolmaker’s perspective. Bulletin of
the Association for Information Science & Technology, 39(4), 31–34.
NISO. (2014). NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics (Altmetrics) Project. NISO. Retrieved
from http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative/
Piwowar, H., 2. (2013). Introduction altmetrics: What, why and where? Bulletin of the
Association for Information Science & Technology, 39(4), 8–9.
References
16. Plum Analytics. (2014). Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.plumanalytics.com/
Priem, J., & Costello, K. L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15J41q9EzK3CiMMoIPKY545ACndORpa6Wtj75v1Yj
rzQ/edit#slide=id.i0
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved
from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
Project COUNTER Code of Practice for Electronic Resources: Release 4. (2012). Project
COUNTER. Retrieved from http://www.projectcounter.org/r4/COPR4.pdf
ResearchGate. (2014). Retrieved May 9, 2014, from http://www.researchgate.net/
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. (2014, April 15). In Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://am.ascb.org/dora/files/sfdeclarationfinal.pdf
Thomson Reuters Statement Regarding the San Francisco Declaration on Research
Assessment - Research Analytics - Thomson Reuters. (n.d.). Retrieved May 4, 2014, from
http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/statement_re_sfdra/
References
Editor's Notes
Most publishers (with the exception of PLoS, see above), rely on aggregators to provide article level data. PLoS collects its own article level metrics (rather than purchasing them from an aggregator).
Not all aggregators (or publishers) use the same data points or sources which allows them to compliment one another when used simultaneously but also has the potential for creating inconsistencies. "For example, PLOS, ImpactStory, Altmetric, and PlumAnalytics collect article-level metrics for some of the same data sources. But are the numbers they present to users consistent for the same paper or are they different due to different collection dates, data sources, or methods of collection? Each of the aggregate article-level metrics providers may collect and present article-level metrics as relevant for their target audience. Thus, as article-level metrics consumers and researchers, we need to have a clear understanding of the potential pitfalls when using article-level metrics data" (Chamberlain, 2013, p. 7).
Some of these are free, some are paid.
Almetrics.com (not to be confused with Altmetric.org) where you can download a free API that will (in theory) provide you with an altmetric score for any article you find on the web.
New insights: "The new metrics offer the possibility to discover new insights into impact that have been previously impossible to obtain” (Galligan & Dyas-Correia, 2013, p. 56)
Open data: The difference between altmetrics and traditional metrics is that altmetrics "use mostly publically available data, making the process and calculations completely transparent" where as traditional metrics like the journal impact factor is made available only by subscription (from Thomson Reuters) and calculated using a less transparent algorithm (even though the equation has been published many times). Other traditional metrics are generally made available only to those libraries that subscribed to particular data sources and are, now, regulated by industry standards (Project Counter).
Speed: nearly real-time metrics of scholarly impact; according to a study Jason Priem presented at ASIST in 2010, 15% of Twitter citations occurred on the same day an article was published, 39% in the same week, and 56% in the same month.
Diversity: more than just citations, altmetrics include discussion by the media, mentions in the news, discussion by the public as well as importance to colleagues.
(Galligan & Dyas-Correia, 2013, p. 56)
(Chamberlain, 2013)
