Altmetria jako przedmiot zainteresowania bibliologii i informatologii

• Authors: Kowalska Małgorzata

Title variants

EN

Altmetrics as an Area of Interest in the Field of Library and Information Science

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

PL

Teza/cel artykułu – Niniejszy artykuł omawia istotę wskaźników altmetrycznych w ocenie dorobku naukowego oraz podejmuje próbę udzielenia odpowiedzi na pytanie, w jakim stopniu problematyka nowych rodzajów metryk stanowi przedmiot zainteresowania badaczy z zakresu bibliologii i informatologii. Metody badań – Autorka przeprowadza analizę zawartości czasopism z zakresu biblio- i informatologii, w wyniku której wyłania najczęściej podejmowane obszary tematyczne odnoszące się do zagadnienia altmetrii. Wyniki i wnioski – Przeprowadzone badania dowodzą dużej popularności problematyki metryk alternatywnych w piśmiennictwie z zakresu biblio- i informatologii, zwłaszcza w ostatnich trzech latach. Autorka stoi na stanowisku, że zainteresowanie tematyką altmetrii będzie nadal rosło, a same altmetryki odegrają w przyszłości istotną rolę w ocenie publikacji naukowych.

EN

Thesis/Objective – The author discusses the significance of alternative metrics in the assessment of research input and attempts to show if this issue is of any interest to the researchers in the library and information science. Research methods – Using the analysis of the content of the library and information science journals, the author identifies the most popular topics related to altmetrics. Conclusions – The research done by the author proves altmetrics to be very popular issue discussed in the library and information science literature, in particular for the last three years. In the author’s opinion the interest in altmetrics will survive and continue to grow and alternative metrics will play an important role in the assessment of the research input.

Keywords

PL

Altmetria; Bibliologia i informatologia; Metryki alternatywne; Ocena dorobku naukowego

EN

Altmetrics; Library and information science; Alternative metrics; Assessment of research input

• Publisher: Polish Librarians Association, Warsaw, http://www.sbp.pl/en
• Journal: Przegląd Biblioteczny
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 85
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 324-341

Contributors

author

Kowalska Małgorzata

• Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu, Instytut Informacji Naukowej i Bibliologii

References

• „altmetrics” (2017). [online]. Google Trends [dostęp: 31.03.2017]. Dostępny w WWW: <https://trends.google.pl/trends/explore?date=all&q=altmetrics>.
• Adam, Michaele (2014). Bibliometrics 2.0 – Altmetrics in medicine. GMS Medizin – Bibliothek– Information, vol. 14, iss. 3, pp. 1-8.
• Adie, Euan (2014). Taking the alternative mainstream. El Profesional de la Informacion, vol. 23, iss. 4, pp. 349-351.
• Akbulut, Müge (2015). Relationship between traditional metrics and altmetrics: a case analysis of PLoS, Information World, vol. 16, iss. 2, pp. 275-285.
• Altmetrics for Researchers (2015), [online]. Duke University. Medical Center Library & Archives [dostęp: 31.03.2017]. Dostępny w WWW: <http://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/altmetrics/home>.
• Álvarez-Bornstein, Belén; Montesi, Michaela (2016). Researchers’ communication on Twitter. A virtual ethnography in the area of information science. Revista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica, vol. 39, iss. 4, pp. 1-15.
• Barnes, Cameron (2015). The use of altmetrics as a tool for measuring research impact. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, vol. 46, iss. 2, pp. 121-134.
• Barros, Moreno (2015). Altmetrics: Alternative metrics of scientific impact based on social media. Perspectivas em Ciencia da Informacao, vol. 20. iss. 2, pp. 19-37.
• Bornmann, Lutz (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 8, iss. 4, pp. 895-903.
• Bornmann, Lutz; Haunschild, Robin (2016a). How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index, Scientometrics, vol. 107, iss. 3, pp. 1405-1422.
• Bornmann, Lutz; Haunschild, Robin (2016a). Normalization of Mendeley reader impact on the reader- and paper-side: A comparison of the mean discipline normalized reader score (MDNRS) with the mean normalized reader score (MNRS) and bare reader counts. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 10, iss. 3, pp. 776-788.
• Bornmann, Lutz; Haunschild, Robin (2016c). t factor: A metric for measuring impact on Twitter. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, vol. 21, iss. 2, pp. 13-20.
• Cassella, Maria (2015). La valutazione della monografia accademica di ricerca. Biblioteche Oggi, vol. 33, pp. 12-21.
• Chen, Kuang-hua et al. (2015). Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan. Scientometrics, vol. 102, iss. 1, pp. 97-112.
• De Winter, Joost (2015). The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles. Scientometrics, vol. 102, iss. 2, pp. 1773-1779.
• Dhiman, Anil Kumar (2015). Bibliometrics to Altmetrics: Changing trends in assessing research impact. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, vol. 35, iss. 4, pp. 310-315.
• Dos Santos Ribeiro, Danielly; Camargo, Luiza Moreira (2016). Implementation of alternative metrics in Portal oasisbr. Cadernos de Biblioteconomia, Arquivistica e Documentacao, iss. 2, pp. 168-178.
• Ebrahimy, Saeideh; Setareh, Fatemeh (2016). Research on alternative measures in the F1000 system with Google Scholar citation index. Journal of Information Processing & Management, vol. 31, iss. 4, pp. 891-909.
• Eysenbach, Gunther (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research [online], vol. 13, iss. 4 [dostęp: 31.02.2017]. Dostępny w WWW: <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278109/>.
• Fenner, Martin; Linn, Jeniffer (2015). ALM – nowatorskie metryki wskaźników wpływu w publikacjach naukowych. Biblioteka, nr 19, s. 235-246.
• Figshare to display Altmetric badges (2016). Research Information, iss. 84, p. 34.
• Free, David (2016). Altmetric data now available in Summon. College & Research Libraries News, vol. 77, iss. 4, p. 173.
• Galligan, Finbar; Dyas-Correia, Sharon (2013). Altmetrics: rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, Vol, 39, iss. 1, pp. 56-61.
• González-Valiente, Carlo Luis; Pacheco-Mendoza, Josmel; Arencibia-Jorge, Ricardo (2016). A review of altmetrics as an emerging discipline for research evaluation. Learned Publishing, vol. 29, iss. 4, pp. 229-238.
• Gumpenberger, Christian; Glänzel, Wolfgang; Gorraiz, Juan (2016). The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score. Scientometrics, vol. 108, iss. 2, pp. 977-982.
• Haustein, Stefanie et al. (2014). Astrophysicists on Twitter. An in-depth analysis of tweeting and scientific publication behavior. ASLIB Journal of Information Management, vol. 66, iss. 3, pp. 279-296.
• Hoffmann, Christian Pieter; Lutz, Christoph; Meckel, Miriam (2016). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67, iss. 4, pp. 765-775.
• Jaskowska, Małgorzata (2016).Wpływ wskaźników altmetrycznych na doskonalenie systemu oceny wartości prac naukowych w humanistyce. W: Sosińska-Kalata, Barbara; Przastek-Samokowa, Maria; Wiorogórska, Zuza red. Nauka o informacji w okresie zmian: informatologia i humanistyka cyfrowa. Warszawa: Wydaw. SBP, s. 179-193.
• Konkiel, Stacy (2013). Altmetrics: A 21st-century solution to determining research quality. Information Today, [online], vol. 37, iss. 4 [dostęp: 31.03.207]. Dostępny w WWW: <http://www.infotoday.com/OnlineSearcher/Articles/Features/Altmetrics-A-stCentury-Solution-to-Determining-Research-Quality-90551.shtml>.
• Konkiel, Stacy; Scherer, Dave (2013). New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 39, iss. 4, pp. 22-26.
• Kwiek, Marek (2015). Uniwersytet w dobie przemian. Instytucje i kadra akademicka w warunkach rosnącej konkurencji. Warszawa: PWN.
• Linn, Jeniffer (2012). The measure of usage, the usage of measures: article level metrics at PLoS. Against the Grain, vol. 24, iss. 4, pp. 42-46.
• Maflahi, Nabeil; Thelwall, Mike (2016). When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS Journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67, iss. 1, pp. 191-1999.
• Malone, Tara; Burke, Susan (2016). Academic librarians’ knowledge of bibliometrics and altmetrics. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, vol. 11, iss. 3, pp. 34-49.
• Megwalu, Anamika (2015). ResearchGate: an academic social networking site. Charleston Advisor, vol. 17, iss. 1, pp. 47-51.
• Mehraban, Sarah; Mansourian, Yazdan (2014). Tracking scientific trends: scientometrics methods and metrics, and the change in librarians’ roles. Journal of Information Processing and Management, vol. 29, iss. 3, pp. 1-20.
• Melero, Remedios (2015). Altmetrics – a complement to conventional metrics. Biochemia Medica (Zagreb) [online], vol. 25, iss. 2 [dostęp: 31.03.2017]. Dostępny w WWW: <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4470104/>.
• Ming-Yueh, Tsay; Ling-Li, Tseng (2014). An introductory review of altmetrics. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, vol. 51, Special Iss, pp. 91-120.
• Moed, Henk F.; Halevi, Gali (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66, iss. 10, pp. 1988-2002.
• Mohammadi, Ehsan et al. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66, iss. 9, pp. 1832-1846.
• NISO (2016). Outputs of the NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics Project.A Recommended Practice of the National Information Standards Organization, [online]. National Information Standards Organization [dostęp: 31.03.2017]. Dostępny w WWW: <http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/17091/NISO RP-25-2016 Outputs of the NISOAlternative Assessment Project.pdf>.
• O’Neill, Jill (2016). NISO recommended practice: Outputs of the Alternative Assessment Metrics Project. Collaborative Librarianship, vol. 8, iss. 3, pp. 118-123.
• Onyancha, Omwoyo (2017). Altmetrics of South African journals: implications for scholarly impact of South African research. Publishing Research Quarterly, vol. 33, iss. 1, pp. 71-91.
• Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Martin-Martin, Alberto; Lopez-Cozar, Emilio Delgado (2015). ResearchGate as a source for scientific evaluation: revealing its bibliometric application. El Profesional de la Informacion, vol. 25, iss. 2, pp. 303-310.
• Ortega, José Luis (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, vol. 39, iss. 4, pp. 520-536.
• Ortega, José Luis (2016). To be or not to be on Twitter, and its relationship with the tweeting and citation of research papers. Scientometrics, vol. 109, iss. 2, pp. 1353-1364.
• Osiński, Zbigniew (2012). Bibliometria metodą analizy i oceny dorobku naukowego historyków najnowszych dziejów Polski. W: Dymmel, Anna; Rejakowa, Bożena red. Kultura, historia, książka: zbiór studiów. Lublin: UMCS, s. 605-616.
• Priem, Jason et al. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto, [online]. Altmetrics.org [dostęp: 31.03.2017]. Dostępny w WWW: <http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/>.
• Real-time citation tool (2016). CILIP Update, iss. 6, p. 18.
• Robinson-Garcia, Nicolás et al. (2014) New data, new possibilities: exploring the insides of Altmetric.com. El Profesional de la Informacion, vol. 23, iss. 4, pp. 359-366.
• Roemer, Robin Chin; Borchadt, Rachel (2012). From bibliometrics to altmetrics. College & Research Libraries News, vol. 73, iss. 10, pp. 596-600.
• Roemer, Robin Chin; Borchadt, Rachel (2015). issues, controversies, and opportunities of altmetrics. Library Technology Reports, vol. 51, iss. 5, pp. 20-30.
• Ross, Mounce (2013). Open Access and Altmetrics: Distinct but Complementary. Bulletin of Association for Information Science & Technology, Vo. 39, iss. 4, pp. 14-17.
• Rothe, Robin; Schmitz Jasmin (2016). Die mögliche Vielfalt der Impact-Messung: Anbietervergleich von Aggregatoren von Altmetriken [online]. ZB MED-Blog [dostęp: 31.03.2017]. Dostępny w WWW: <http://zbmedblog.de/?p=383>.
• Rychlik, Małgorzata(2013). Epoka cyfrowa i jej nowe wskaźniki altmetryczne. Biuletyn EBIB [online], nr 144 [dostęp: 31.03.2017]. Dostępny w WWW: <http://open.ebib.pl/ojs/index.php/ebib/article/view/121/271>.
• Sheppard, Beth (2015). By the numbers: bibliometrics and altmetrics as measures of faculty impact in the field of religion. Theological Librarianship, vol. 8, iss. 2, pp. 28-36.
• Shrivastva, Rishabh; Mahajan, Preeti (2016). Relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readerships metrics. New Library World, vol. 117, iss. 3/4, pp. 229-238.
• Snijder, Ronald (2016). Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: measuring citations and tweets 5 years later. Scientometrics, vol. 109, iss. 3, pp. 1855-1875.
• Thelwall, Mike; Fairclough Ruth (2015). Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cite articles. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 9, iss. 2, pp. 263-272.
• Thelwall, Mike; Wilson, Paul (2016). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: an analysis of 45 fields. Journal of Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67, iss. 8, pp. 1962-1972.
• Vélez-Cuartas, Gabriel; Lucio-Arias, Diana; Leydesdorff Loet (2016). Regional and global science: publications from Latin America and the Caribbean in the SCIelo Citation Index and the Web of Science. El Profesional de la Informacion, vol. 25, iss. 1, pp. 35-46.
• Wiley adds altmetric data to journal program (2014). Advanced Technology Libraries, vol. 43, iss. 8, pp. 4-5.