Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Michael
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-13T10:37:21Z
dc.date.available2020-03-13T10:37:21Z
dc.date.issued2020-05-12
dc.identifier.citationThelwall, M. (2020) The Pros and Cons of the Use of Altmetrics in Research Assessment. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), p.2. DOI: http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.10en
dc.identifier.issn2689-5870en
dc.identifier.doi10.29024/sar.10
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/623132
dc.description© 2020 The Authors. Published by Levi Library Press. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.10en
dc.description.abstractMany indicators derived from the web have been proposed to supplement citation-based indicators in support of research assessments. These indicators, often called altmetrics, are available commercially from Altmetric.com and Elsevier’s Plum Analytics or can be collected directly. These organisations can also deliver altmetrics to support institutional selfevaluations. The potential advantages of altmetrics for research evaluation are that they may reflect important non-academic impacts and may appear before citations when an article is published, thus providing earlier impact evidence. Their disadvantages often include susceptibility to gaming, data sparsity, and difficulties translating the evidence into specific types of impact. Despite these limitations, altmetrics have been widely adopted by publishers, apparently to give authors, editors and readers insights into the level of interest in recently published articles. This article summarises evidence for and against extending the adoption of altmetrics to research evaluations. It argues that whilst systematicallygathered altmetrics are inappropriate for important formal research evaluations, they can play a role in some other contexts. They can be informative when evaluating research units that rarely produce journal articles, when seeking to identify evidence of novel types of impact during institutional or other self-evaluations, and when selected by individuals or groups to support narrative-based non-academic claims. In addition, Mendeley reader counts are uniquely valuable as early (mainly) scholarly impact indicators to replace citations when gaming is not possible and early impact evidence is needed. Organisations using alternative indicators need recruit or develop in-house expertise to ensure that they are not misused, however.en
dc.formatapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherLevy Library Pressen
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.scholarlyassessmentreports.org/en
dc.subjectAltmetricsen
dc.subjectWebometricsen
dc.subjectScholarly impacten
dc.subjectCitation Analysisen
dc.titleThe pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessmenten
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.journalScholarly Assessment Reportsen
dc.date.updated2020-03-10T11:30:36Z
dc.date.accepted2020-03-07
rioxxterms.funderUniversity of Wolverhamptonen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUOW13032020MTen
rioxxterms.versionVoRen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-03-13en
dc.source.volume2
dc.source.issue1
refterms.dateFCD2020-03-13T10:37:07Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2020-03-13T10:37:23Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Thelwall_Pros_and_cons_of_the_ ...
Size:
1.306Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/