The significant difference in impact: An exploratory study about the meaning and value of metrics for open access monographs

Wennström, Sofie; Schubert, Gábor; Stone, Graham; Sondervan, Jeroen

doi:10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2019.9

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an exploratory paper Wennström et al, (2019) studied a very limited number of OA books (N = 22), ig lig ting disciplinary differences across all metrics for open monograp s, t e potential for altmetric data, and t e need for more researc into bot t e metrics and aut or attitudes towards book metrics.…”

Section: The Impa T Of the S Holarly Bookmentioning

confidence: 99%

An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences

Michael

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last de ade has seen two signif ant phenomena emerge in resear h ommuni ation: the rise of open a ess (OA) publishing, and eviden e of online sharing in the form of altmetri s. There has been limited examination of the efe t of OA on online sharing for journal arti les, and little for books. This paper examines the altmetri s of a set of 32,222 books (of whi h 5% are OA) and a set of 220,527 hapters (of whi h 7% are OA) indexed by the s holarly database Dimensions in the So ial S ien es and Humanities. Both OA books and hapters have signif antly higher use on so ial networks, higher overage in the mass media and blogs, and eviden e of higher rates of so ial impa t in poli y do uments. OA hapters have higher rates of overage on Wikipedia than their non-OA equivalents, and are more likely to be shared on Mendeley. Even within the Humanities and So ial S ien es, dis iplinary diferen es in altmetri a tivity are evident. The efe t is onfrmed for hapters, although sampling issues prevent the strong on lusion that OA fa ilitates extra attention at whole book level, the apparent OA altmetri s advantage suggests that the move towards OA is in reasing so ial sharing and broader impa t. Introdu tionTwo of t e largest p enomena in scientific communication in t e last decade ave been t e rise of Open Access (OA) journal publications, and t e researc area known as altmetrics. OA publications are t ose t at are freely available on t e internet, via a range of routes. Altmetrics is t e collection, reporting and analysis of attention being paid to researc publications across a variety of online platforms.Books and book c apters are under-represented in t e growing corpus of researc on OA. It as been suggested t at t is as arisen due to t e general lack of attention paid to bot t e book form, and also t e Arts and Humanities disciplines -w ic tend to favour books as t eir preferred c annel for publis ing researc .In general, t e absence of sales figures, reliable metadata, download figures and t e relatively slow citation performance of books as made a comparative study of OA versus non-OA books and c apters c allenging. T e relative paucity of data may ave contributed to a low level of examination in t e scientometric literature, and as suc , t ere is a lack of compelling evidence to drive t e adoption of OA for books and c apters.An emerging literature examining t e effect on social s aring and broader impact on OA journal articles offers some met odological insig ts, but given t e known differences

show abstract

Section: The Impa T Of the S Holarly Bookmentioning

confidence: 99%

An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences

Michael

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stockholm University Press analysed usage statistics, citation data and altmetrics, in combination with a survey of attitudes and behaviour among authors and editors who have published open access books. 4 The authors came to the conclusion that there are differences within specific academic disciplines but also mentioned that interpretation of the metrics is still complicated.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open access book usage data – how close is COUNTER to the other kind?

Snijder¹

2021

Insights the UKSG Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the OAPEN Library moved to a new platform, based on DSpace 6. During the same period, IRUS-UK started working on the deployment of Release 5 of the COUNTER Code of Practice (R5). This is, therefore, a good moment to compare two widely used usage metrics -R5 and Google Analytics (GA). This article discusses the download data of close to 11,000 books and chapters from the OAPEN Library, from the period 15 April 2020 to 31 July 2020. When a book or chapter is downloaded, it is logged by GA and at the same time a signal is sent to IRUS-UK. This results in two datasets: the monthly downloads measured in GA and the usage reported by R5, also clustered by month. The number of downloads reported by GA is considerably larger than R5. The total number of downloads in GA for the period is over 3.6 million. In contrast, the amount reported by R5 is 1.5 million, around 400,000 downloads per month. Contrasting R5 and GA data on a country-by-country basis shows significant differences. GA lists more than five times the number of downloads for several countries, although the totals for other countries are about the same. When looking at individual tiles, of the 500 highest ranked titles in GA that are also part of the 1,000 highest ranked titles in R5, only 6% of the titles are relatively close together. The choice of metric service has considerable consequences on what is reported. Thus, drawing conclusions about the results should be done with care. One metric is not better than the other, but we should be open about the choices made.After all, open access book metrics are complicated, and we can only benefit from clarity.

show abstract

“…Although lacking the marketing muscle of the larger commercial presses, a distinct advantage they hold is a much closer and direct relationship with the communities they represent. Presses like punctum, Goldsmiths Press and Stockholm University Press have gained in particular from their active presence on social media (Wennström, Schubert, Stone, & Sondervan, 2019). There are also possibilities for building on the marketing skills that librarians have developed in recent years, given that such activities are now commonplace in libraries (Brewerton, 2003).…”

Section: Dissemination Via Digital Platforms and Book Sellersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rebels with a Cause? Supporting Library and Academic-led Open Access Publishing

Deville

Sondervan

Stone

et al. 2019

LIBER

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors, who all have experience with academic publishing, outline the landscape of new university and academic-led open access publishing, before discussing four interrelated sets of challenges which are often referred when questioning the viability of such publishing ventures. They are: (1) professionalism, (2) scale, (3) quality, and (4) discoverability & dissemination. The authors provide examples of how, albeit differing in size, form and ambition, these new presses are not just adhering to conventional publishing norms but often innovating in order to surpass them.

show abstract

The significant difference in impact: An exploratory study about the meaning and value of metrics for open access monographs

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences

An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences

Open access book usage data – how close is COUNTER to the other kind?

Rebels with a Cause? Supporting Library and Academic-led Open Access Publishing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About