Altmetrics as a means of assessing scholarly output

Career progression for scientists involves an assessment of their contribution to their field and a prediction of their future potential. Traditional measures, such as the impact factor of the journal that a researcher publishes in, may not be an appropriate or accurate means of assessing the overall output of an individual. The development of altmetrics offers the potential for fuller assessments of a researcher's output based on both their traditional and non‐traditional scholarly outputs. New tools should make it easier to include non‐traditional outputs such as data, software and contributions to peer review in the evaluation of early‐ and mid‐career researchers.

[1]  Paul Groth,et al.  The Altmetrics Collection , 2012, PloS one.

[2]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Indicators for the Data Usage Index (DUI): an incentive for publishing primary biodiversity data through global information infrastructure , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[3]  A A Sandberg,et al.  The journal "impact factor": a misnamed, misleading, misused measure. , 1998, Cancer genetics and cytogenetics.

[4]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  On the Predictability of Future Impact in Science , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[5]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[6]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  F1000 recommendations as a new data source for research evaluation: A comparison with citations , 2013, ArXiv.

[7]  J. Hirsch.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific output , 2005 .

[8]  Sudeep Sarkar,et al.  Changing the academic culture: Valuing patents and commercialization toward tenure and career advancement , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century , 2012 .

[10]  M. Walport,et al.  Looking for Landmarks: The Role of Expert Review and Bibliometric Analysis in Evaluating Scientific Publication Outputs , 2009, PloS one.

[11]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  J. Henriksen,et al.  How well does journal 'impact' work in the assessment of papers on clinical physiology and nuclear medicine? , 1997, Clinical physiology.

[13]  International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium.  Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome , 2001, Nature.

[14]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services , 2013, PloS one.

[15]  G T Tucker,et al.  Journal impact factors: a 'bioequivalence' issue? , 2001, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[16]  Mary Anne McDonald,et al.  Faculty Perceptions of How Community‐Engaged Research Is Valued in Tenure, Promotion, and Retention Decisions , 2013, Clinical and translational science.

[17]  Olavo B. Amaral,et al.  Rising Publication Delays Inflate Journal Impact Factors , 2012, PloS one.

[18]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  P. Green,et al.  Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. I. Accuracy assessment. , 1998, Genome research.

[20]  P. Seglen,et al.  Education and debate , 1999, The Ethics of Public Health.

[21]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  The Eigenfactor™ Metrics , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[22]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania , 2014, mBio.

[23]  Hui Wu,et al.  Correlation and Interaction Visualization of Altmetric Indicators Extracted From Scholarly Social Network Activities: Dimensions and Structure , 2013, Journal of medical Internet research.

[24]  M. Fenner.  What Can Article-Level Metrics Do for You? , 2013, PLoS biology.

[25]  D. Harley.  Scholarly Communication: Cultural Contexts, Evolving Models , 2013, Science.

[26]  P Green,et al.  Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. II. Error probabilities. , 1998, Genome research.

[27]  J. Hirsch.  Does the h index have predictive power? , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  C. Neylon,et al.  Article-Level Metrics and the Evolution of Scientific Impact , 2009, PLoS biology.

[29]  Gunther Eysenbach.  Correction: Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact , 2012, Journal of Medical Internet Research.

[30]  A. D. Jackson,et al.  Measures for measures , 2006, Nature.