The Values and Limits of Altmetrics

Fraumann, Grischa

doi:10.1002/ir.20267

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While altmetrics offer certain advantages over traditional measures, such as measuring the societal impact of research and public engagement with scholarly work, they are not without limitations . First, the AAS is primarily a measure of attention and not necessarily quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short‐term impact of Altmetric Attention Scores on citation counts in selected major pharmacy journals

Baker

2019

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The impact and quality of a faculty member's publications is a key factor in promotion and tenure decisions. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is an objective score frequently used to determine the reach of a published work across the World Wide Web and social media. The utility of the AAS in pharmacy practice journals is not well understood. Objective To determine the short‐term impact of a higher AAS on citation count for articles published in major pharmacy journals. Methods This cross‐sectional study evaluated articles from pharmacy journals ranked in the top 10% according to the AAS in the year 2017. Individual sources of attention that determined the AAS were also evaluated. Correlation between the AAS and the number of citations (through November 2018) was assessed using the Spearman's correlation (rs) test. A Kruskal‐Wallis one‐way analysis of variance was used to compare the AAS between journals. Results Six major pharmacy journals were identified. A total of 1376 articles were published in 2017, and 137 of these represented the top 10% with the highest AAS. The median AAS was 19 (interquartile range 15‐28). http://twitter.com and http://mendeley.com were the most common sources of attention. Over half (56.2%) of the articles were original investigations and 49.8% were either cross‐sectional, qualitative, or cohort studies. No significant correlation was found between the AAS and citation count (rs = 0.07, P = .485). Mendeley was the only attention source that correlated with the number of citations (rs = 0.486, P < .001). The median AAS varied widely between each journal (P < .001). Conclusions The median AAS of 19 suggests articles published in selected major pharmacy journals are near the top 5% of all scientific output. However, we found no short‐term correlation between the AAS and the number of citations for articles published in major pharmacy journals in the year 2017.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short‐term impact of Altmetric Attention Scores on citation counts in selected major pharmacy journals

Baker

2019

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These metrics, as they are variously defined, measure the online mentions through Twitter, blogs, and other social media sources. Many academic research institutions use them to measure the impact of scholarly works 12 . However, the validity of these scores is limited by the validity of the social media outlets from which they draw.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many academic research institutions use them to measure the impact of scholarly works. 12 However, the validity of these scores is limited by the validity of the social media outlets from which they draw. In one example, an article received a very high Altmetric score, not because of its academic contribution, but rather because it was circulated widely on Twitter because it was published with disparaging comments about another group's study that appeared to be meant for draft comments.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations and Author Characteristics in Open‐Access and Subscription‐Based Otolaryngology Journals

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To describe the academic impact and author characteristics of open-access journals in otolaryngology. Methods: Original articles from three open-access (OTO Open, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, and World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology) and three conventional subscription-based otolaryngology specific journals (Otolaryngology -Head & Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope, JAMA Otolaryngology -Head & Neck Surgery) were assessed. Publication dates of articles from January 2017 to July 2020 were included. Google Scholar and Web of Science citation counts were recorded. H-indexes of first and last authors were included according to Google Scholar and Web of Science and analyzed. Results: This analysis included 3284 articles. Articles published in open-access otolaryngology-specific journals had significantly fewer citations on average (6.8) than articles published in subscription-based journals (12.4, p < 0.0001). The last authors of articles published in subscription-based journals had significantly higher h-indexes (23.50) compared with the last authors of articles published in open-access journals (19.53, p < 0.0001). The first authors of articles published in open-access journals had similar h-indexes (10.26) as the first authors of articles published in subscription-based journals (10.33). Conclusions: Articles published in open-access journals in otolaryngology were cited significantly less than those published in subscription-based journals. The h-index of the last authors was significantly lower in open-access journals; however, the h-index of the first authors was similar between open-access and subscription-based journals. As measured by citations, open-access publications do not yet appear to have the impact of subscription-based publications.

show abstract

“…Altmetrics eventually collapse all this information into a single number, which is framed as representing a paper's overall impact on society. While some academics use Altmetrics as a way to monitor the popularity of their outputs personally, they are also used increasingly as a performance measurement tool by research institutions and funding bodies around the world (Fraumann, 2018). The institutionalization of Altmetrics as a performance measure in academia raises the question for ECRs of whether they should focus impact work primarily on those activities captured by these metrics.…”

Section: Should I Focus On Impact Activities That Count?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Striving for Societal Impact as an Early-career Researcher: Reflections on Five Common Concerns

Friesike¹,

Dobusch²,

Heimstädt³

2022

Organizing for Societal Grand Challenges

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many early-career researchers (ECR) are motivated by the prospect of creating knowledge that is useful, not just within but also beyond the academic community. Although research facilities, funders and academic journals praise this eagerness for societal impact, the path toward such contributions is by no means straightforward. In this essay, we address five common concerns faced by ECRs when they strive for societal impact. We discuss the opportunity costs associated with impact work, the fuzziness of current impact measurement, the challenge of incremental results, the actionability of research findings, and the risk of saying something wrong in public. We reflect on these concerns in light of our own experience with impact work and conclude by suggesting a "post-heroic" perspective on impact, whereby seemingly mundane activities are linked in a meaningful way.

show abstract

The Values and Limits of Altmetrics

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Short‐term impact of Altmetric Attention Scores on citation counts in selected major pharmacy journals

Short‐term impact of Altmetric Attention Scores on citation counts in selected major pharmacy journals

Citations and Author Characteristics in Open‐Access and Subscription‐Based Otolaryngology Journals

Striving for Societal Impact as an Early-career Researcher: Reflections on Five Common Concerns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About