Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research

Mas-Bleda, Amalia

doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2118-8

Cited by 32 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 93 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, it should not be ignored that part of the Iranian research materials, and also other countries with non-English language, are not covered by indexing databases due to the so called language bias [14,26]. The vast majority of international databases that evaluate scientific products only or adequately archive English articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The research performance of Iranian medical academics: a National Analyses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundScientometric studies are one of the most important and useful tools to assess the research performance and knowledge impact of researchers. The aim of this study was to map out the scientific performance of the Iranian medical academics with respect to a detailed range of scientometric indicators.MethodsUsing scientometric approach, individual and scientific performance data of medical academic staff were extracted from the Iranian Scientometric Information Database (ISID). Total number of publications, total number of citations, citation per paper, h-index, international collaboration, self-citation, SJR decile, i10-Index, Quartile distribution were the studied scientometric variables. Out of the registered 19,023 academic staff, 746 were included in the study through simple random sampling method using random sample extraction function in STATA. Data were analyzed using STATA 14 statistical software package.ResultsMost of the included academicians were men (60%). A total of 13,682 articles were published by them until 2018, being cited 114,928 times with a mean of 5.77 citation per paper. H-index median was three and about 90% of the staff had an H-index below 10. Number of published papers, cite per paper and H-index metrics were significantly different with respect to gender, academic position/degree, and general field of study (p < 0.05). About 2.5% of published articles were contributed through international collaboration. The scientometric performance of academic staff was highly diverse with respect to the employing institution and its national classification group (type 1, 2, 3).ConclusionsNevertheless to the great scientific production of medical academics, individual and institutional characteristics were identified as effective variables in academics research performance and should be considered in their assessment. Academicians affiliated with type 2 and 3 universities (based on national ranking of medical universities) had weaker research performance compared to those affiliated with type 1 universities. However, low rate of international research collaborations was a common challenge in medical universities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The research performance of Iranian medical academics: a National Analyses

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wikipedia (see https://www.wikipedia.org) is a free encyclopedia platform with editable content (Mas-Bleda & Thelwall, 2016). Most of the references in Wikipedia are to non-scholarly documents but contributors include scholarly references (Priem, 2014).…”

Section: Description Of Altmetricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)

Bornmann

Haunschild

Adams

2019

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Altmetrics have been proposed as a way to assess the societal impact of research. Although altmetrics are already in use as impact or attention metrics in different contexts, it is still not clear whether they really capture or reflect societal impact. This study is based on altmetrics, citation counts, research output and case study data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), and peers' REF assessments of research output and societal impact. We investigated the convergent validity of altmetrics by using two REF datasets: publications submitted as research output (PRO) to the REF and publications referenced in case studies (PCS). Case studies, which are intended to demonstrate societal impact, should cite the most relevant research papers. We used the MHq' indicator for assessing impactan indicator which has been introduced for count data with many zeros. The results of the first part of the analysis show that news media as well as mentions on Facebook, in blogs, in Wikipedia, and in policy-related documents have higher MHq' values for PCS than for PRO. Thus, the altmetric indicators seem to have convergent validity for these data. In the second part of the analysis, altmetrics have been correlated with REF reviewers' average scores on PCS. The negative or close to zero correlations question the convergent validity of altmetrics in thatcontext. We suggest that they may capture a different aspect of societal impact (which can be called unknown attention) to that seen by reviewers (who are interested in the causal link between research and action in society).

show abstract

“…The web-based microblogging system Twitter is a very popular altmetrics source for measuring the broader impact of science (Mas-Bleda & Thelwall, 2016). Many scientometric studies on altmetrics have used Twitter data and many publishers add Twitter information to their published papersreflecting the attention a paper receives.…”

Section: -6)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Allegation of scientific misconduct increases Twitter attention

Bornmann

Haunschild

2018

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The web-based microblogging system Twitter is a very popular altmetrics source for measuring the broader impact of science. In this case study, we demonstrate how problematic the use of Twitter data for research evaluation can be, even though the aspiration of measurement is degraded from impact to attention measurement. We collected the Twitter data for the paper published by Yamamizu et al. (2017). An investigative committee found that the main figures in the paper are fraudulent.

show abstract

Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research

Cited by 32 publications

References 93 publications

The research performance of Iranian medical academics: a National Analyses

The research performance of Iranian medical academics: a National Analyses

Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)

Allegation of scientific misconduct increases Twitter attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About