TEST BANK For Radiologic Science for Technologists, 12th Edition by Stewart C...
Scientific and technical foundation for altmetrics in the US
1. Scientific and technical foundation for altmetrics in the US
William Gunn, Ph.D.
Head of Academic Outreach
Mendeley
@mrgunn
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3555-2054
6. The higher the impact factor, the more likely the research is to be retracted, partly due to intense competition.
http://bjoern.brembs.net/news766.html.11
What matters is who is reading your work!
There is no correlation between the number a citations an article receives and the impact factor of the journal. http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7079/497.1.full
13. ...and aggregates research data in the cloud
Mendeley extracts research data…
Install Mendeley Desktop
Collecting rich signals
from domain experts.
21. We are publishing this data to the LOD cloud
http://code-research.eu/
22. Defining readership
•Each document addition is a “read”
•stamped with metadata describing the context of the read event
•a read is like a citation, but faster and captures more
23. Professors on Mendeley tend to be in applied math, stats, and physics.
Graduate students on Mendeley tend to be in engineering disciplines.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1041819
24. Cell Biology and Neuroscience are highly active disciplines, relative to their output.
Social sciences are highly active relative to their citations/paper
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1041819
25.
26. Readership vs. citations
•it comes with a payload of metadata
•it accrues faster
•it illuminates previously hidden impact
29. Issues To Be Addressed
•Identity
•Privacy
•Attribution
•Gaming
•Filtration
standards/
best practice
30. Consistency is key
http://www.niso.org/publications/isq/2013/v25no2/chamberlain/
31. NISO Altmetrics Standards
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
American Library Association
California Institute of Technology
Center for Research Libraries
EBSCO
Elsevier
Harvard
Internet Archive
Wiley
Library and Information Technology Association
Library of Congress
Los Alamos National Laboratory
National Institutes of Health
National Library of Medicine
OCLC
Princeton
Columbia
Smithsonian
Stanford
…
32. NISO Altmetrics Standards
•Types of sources: Mendeley, Twitter, Views, Downloads, Github
•Quality of sources: collection, reporting, aggregation methods; provenance; availability
•Use cases: discovery and assessment (of people and objects)
33. Types of sources
Most altmetrics providers use the following:
•Page views or downloads
•Mendeley readers (articles only for now)
•Tweets
•Comments:Blog posts, Pubmed Commons
•Github
34. Quality of sources
Collection methods vary & counts are inconsistent. Further study is needed.
For reporting, transparency is key. Show raw data, not just a derived number.
Aggregation of raw data is generally done by the recipient (institution, funder, publisher, author, etc) according to their need, instead of using one central source.
35. Quality of sources
Understanding and open reporting of provenance is important for community buy-in and long term stability.
Raw data should be available under open license, via API, with identifiers.
Identifiers include DOI:object, ORCID:person, ISNI/Ringgold: institution
Ex. This person(ORCID), at this institution (ISNI), released this object (DOI).
36. Use cases
Two main use cases exist: Discovery and Evaluation
Because the data sources remain variable, discovery can be done now. Accuracy of numbers matters less in recommendation than in assessment. Precision important for both.
37. Next Steps
•NISO white paper will be in public comment period soon.
•Working Groups will be established to develop best practices and standards.
•Pending approval, NISO will issue recommended practice or published standard.
•NISO to develop training to implement and adopt any recommended standards.
38. Amgen: 47 of 53 “landmark” oncology publications could not be reproduced
Bayer: 43 of 67 oncology & cardiovascular projects were based on contradictory results
Dr. John Ioannidis: 432 publications purporting sex differences in hypertension, multiple sclerosis, or lung cancer. Only one data set was reproducible http://reproducibilityinitiative.org
There is no gold standard
