Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusing terminology?

Glänzel, Wolfgang; Gorraiz, Juan

doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1472-7

Cited by 64 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Monographs can have educational or public interest value as well as research impact (Kousha & Thelwall, 2015) and they can aim to enrich culturally non-academic audiences (Small, 2013). In this context, new metrics and specifically usage metrics (Gorraiz et al, 2014b;Glänzel & Gorraiz, 2015) and altmetrics (Priem, 2014;Robinson-Garcia et al, 2014), have the potential to apply alternative evaluation methods that complement citation-based indicators. Gaining a much broader and more accurate picture of the impact of monographs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than five years after their emergence, altmetrics are still seen as a promise to complement traditional citation-based indicators. However, no study has focused on their potential usefulness to capture the impact of scholarly books. While recent literature shows that citation indicators cannot fully capture the impact of books, other studies have suggested alternative indicators such as usage, publishers' prestige or library holdings. In this paper, we calculate 18 indicators which range from altmetrics to library holdings, views, downloads or citations to the production of monographs of a Spanish university using the bibliometric suite PlumX from EBSCO. The objective of the study is to adopt a multidimensional perspective on the analysis of books and understand the level of complementarity between these different indicators. Also, we compare the overview offered by this range of indicators when applied to monographs with the traditional bibliometric perspective focused on journal articles and citation impact. We observe a low presence of altmetric indicators for monographs, even lower than for journal articles and a predominance of library holdings, confirming this indicator as the most promising one towards the analysis of the impact of books.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aim of this single journal study was to investigate to what extent download statistics (usage) and Mendeley readership (altmetrics) correlate with Google Scholar citations, and to use these indicators to rank EJISDC articles published over a 14year period. Glänzel & Gorraiz (2015:2162 argue that there is a difference between usage metrics and alternative metrics. Usage metrics measure views and downloads from publishers and information providers whereas altmetrics measure social media indicators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Downloads, Mendeley Readership and Google Scholar Citations as Indicators of Article Performance

Naudé

2017

E J Info Sys Dev Countries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This single journal article level indicator study investigated the relationship between download usage statistics, Mendeley readership scores and Google Scholar citation counts. The 378 articles published in the Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries (EJISDC) in the 14‐year period 2000 to 2013 were examined. Results showed that all 378 articles were downloaded and had Mendeley readers. Of the 378 articles, 359 (94.97%) articles received Google Scholar citations and 19 (5.03%) articles received no citations. For the 359 cited articles, the average Google Scholar citations per article were 28.82. The average EJISDC downloads were 7440.69, the average Mendeley readership was 19.30 and Google Scholar citations were 27.36. The most influential articles in the EJISDC were identified by ranking and by comparing the top 20 articles by downloads, Mendeley readership and Google Scholar citations. The leading authors were identified using the top 20 ranking and comparing it to the most productive authors. For this journal, the results seem to indicate that the highest correlations (Spearman correlation coefficient) were between Google Scholar citations and downloads, a slightly lower correlation between Google Scholar citations and Mendeley readership, and the lowest correlation was between downloads and Mendeley readership.

show abstract

“…There is also much confusion between altmetrics and article level metrics (ALM), which as a level of aggregation can refer to any type of metric aggregated for articles. While metrics based on social media represent the core of altmetrics, some also consider news media, policy documents, library holdings and download statistics as relevant sources, although derived indicators for those have been available long before the introduction of altmetrics (Glänzel & Gorraiz, 2015). Despite often being presented as antagonistic, some of these metrics are actually similar to journal citations (e.g., mention in a blog post), while others are quite different (e.g., tweets).…”

Section: Lack Of a Common Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As uptake among researchers is constantly increasing, social media are finding their way into scholarly communication and, under the umbrella term altmetrics, were introduced to research evaluation. Fueled by technological possibilities and an increasing demand to demonstrate impact beyond the scientific community, altmetrics received great attention as potential democratizers of the scientific reward system and indicators of societal impact. This paper focuses on current challenges of altmetrics. Heterogeneity, data quality and particular dependencies are identified as the three major issues and discussed in detail with a particular emphasis on past developments in bibliometrics. The heterogeneity of altmetrics mirrors the diversity of the types of underlying acts, most of which take place on social media platforms. This heterogeneity has made it difficult to establish a common definition or conceptual framework. Data quality issues become apparent in the lack of accuracy, consistency and replicability of various altmetrics, which is largely affected by the dynamic nature of social media events. It is further highlighted that altmetrics are shaped by technical possibilities and depend particularly on the availability of APIs and DOIs, are strongly dependent on data providers and aggregators, and potentially influenced by technical affordances of underlying platforms.

show abstract

Usage metrics versus altmetrics: confusing terminology?

Cited by 64 publications

References 24 publications

Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX

Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX

Comparing Downloads, Mendeley Readership and Google Scholar Citations as Indicators of Article Performance

Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About