Abstract
AbstractThe increase in the availability of data about how research is discussed, used, rated, recommend, saved and read online has allowed researchers to reconsider the mechanisms by which scholarship is evaluated. It is now possible to better track the influence of research beyond academia, though the measures by which we can do so are not yet mature enough to stand on their own. In this article, we examine a new class of data (commonly called “altmetrics”) and describe its benefits, limitations and recommendations for its use and interpretation in the context of research assessment. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.
Highlights
To date, academia’s traditional framework for attempting to understand influential scholarship has lacked a concern with “real world” impacts
Though altmetrics currently share many of the same limitations as citation-based metrics, there are a number of ways that the use of altmetrics can improve upon the use of their bibliometric predecessors
Though quantitative altmetrics cannot themselves currently serve as evidence of true impact, some metrics can signal that a lot of attention is being paid to research, and in turn that “pathways to impact” exist
Summary
Academia’s traditional framework for attempting to understand influential scholarship has lacked a concern with “real world” impacts. In many ways altmetrics’ limitations mirror those of other quantitative impact metrics: Hicks et al (2015) recommend the use of percentiles, in particular, as a means for providing such context.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have