Abstract
The debate about the need to revise metrics that evaluate research excellence has been ongoing for years, and a number of studies have identified important issues that have yet to be addressed. Internet and other technological developments have enabled the collection of richer data and new approaches to research assessment exercises. Open access strongly advocates for maximizing research impact by enhancing seamless accessibility. In addition, new tools and strategies have been used by open access journals and repositories to showcase how science can benefit from free online dissemination. Latest players in the debate include initiatives based on alt-metrics, which enrich the landscape with promising indicators. To start with, the article gives a brief overview of the debate and the role of open access in advancing a new frame to assess science. Next, the work focuses on the strategy that the Spanish National Research Council’s repository DIGITAL.CSIC is implementing to collect a rich set of statistics and other metrics that are useful for repository administrators, researchers and the institution alike. A preliminary analysis of data hints at correlations between free dissemination of research through DIGITAL.CSIC and enhanced impact, reusability and sharing of CSIC science on the web.
Highlights
The debate about the need to revise metrics that evaluate research excellence has been ongoing for years, and a number of studies have identified important issues that have yet to be addressed
DIGITAL.CSIC runs on DSpace, a module developed by Tasmania University was chosen to retrieve data on views and full text downloads at a time when DSpace statistics were less rich as they are today
It is possible to monitor items growth filtering by full text files, restricted and embargoed access options and to identify typologies that contain the highest volume of OA resources. Deeper insight into these results shows a relatively high correlation between institutes that boast the highest number of items in the repository, institutes that enjoy the most highly downloaded items and their free full text accessibility through DIGITAL.CSIC
Summary
Coined by Eugene Garfield in 1955, the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been a predominant measure used to evaluate scientific literature and identify researchers’ prestige, promotion and tenure world-over. The concentration of academic citations is quite strong, and studies estimate that only the top 20% of articles receive approximately 80% of all citations in journals [5]. Does this mean that the rest of scholarly papers lack interest and impact? A PLoS analyzed its published articles and concluded that citations reflect just 1% of usage [6]. As another well-known critique argues, self-citations and certain unethical editorial policies tend to inflate JIF artificially [7]. The Future of Academic Impact Conference organized by the London School of Economics Public Policy Group in December 2012 is just one example of the many initiatives that have since been launched to examine both the benefits of broader criteria to measure research impact and the role open access can play in the years to come
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
