Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Transferring scientific knowledge to non-academic audiences is an essential aspect of the open science agenda, which calls for scholars to pursue a popularization of their research. Accordingly, purposefully introducing scientific insights to the public at large is almost univocally deemed commendable. Indeed, in today’s models of research evaluation, the objects and activities considered are being extended beyond peer-reviewed journal articles to include non-scholarly popular communication. Although altmetrics offer one instrumental way to count some interactions with lay audiences, their reliance on social media makes them susceptible to manipulation, and mostly reflect circulation among niche audiences. In comparison, attention from non-scholarly media like newspapers and magazines seems a more relevant pathway to effectuate societal impact, due to its recognition in qualitative assessment tools and its broad, societal reach. Based on a case study of social scientists’ attention by newspapers and magazines in Flanders (northern Dutch-speaking region of Belgium) in 2019, this paper highlights that frequent participation in the public debate is reserved for high-status researchers only. Results show highly skewed media appearance patterns in both career position and gender, as eight male professors accounted for almost half of all 2019 media attention for social scientists. Because media attention is highly subject-dependent moreover, certain disciplines and fields offer easier pathways to popularization in media than others. Both the open science agenda and research assessment models value presence of researchers in popular media, adding written press attention to existing evaluation assessments however would disproportionately disadvantage early career researchers and exacerbate existing inequalities in academia.

 

 

Correlation Between Altmetric Attention Scores and Citations for Articles Published in High–Impact Factor Ophthalmology Journals From 2018 to 2019 | Medical Journals and Publishing | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network

Importance  The Altmetric attention score (AAS) provides new information to gauge the impact of a research article not found through typical metrics, such as impact factor or citation counts. Objective  To explore the association between AAS and common impact markers among high-impact ophthalmology journals from 2018 to 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants  All articles published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), JAMA Ophthalmology (JAMAO), and Ophthalmology (OPH) from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, were collected for this cross-sectional study. Excluded articles were those missing Altmetric data at the time of data collection. The AAS and associated social media impact for each article were collected with the AAS calculator bookmarklet. Spearman rank correlation analyses and analysis of variance tests were conducted to assess differences in various metrics between AJO, JAMAO, and OPH. The study included articles published of all document types (article, conference paper, editorial, erratum, letter, note, retracted, review, and short survey) and access status (open access and not open access). Main Outcomes and Measures  The correlation between citation counts and Altmetric variables including AAS. Results  A total of 2467 articles were published in the study period. There were 351 articles excluded owing to missing Altmetric data. Of the 2116 articles included in the analysis, 1039 (49.1%) were published in 2018, and 1077 (50.9%) were published in 2019; the mean number of citations was 8.8 (95% CI, 7.9-9.6) for AJO, 6.2 (95% CI, 5.3-7.1) for JAMAO, and 15.1 (95% CI, 13.3-17.0) for OPH. The mean AAS was 4.5 (95% CI, 3.3-5.6) for AJO (723 publications), 27.4 (95% CI, 22.1-32.8) for JAMAO (758 publications), and 15.1 (95% CI, 10.9-19.3) for OPH (635 publications). Citation rate was moderately correlated with AAS across the 3 journals (AJO, ??=?0.39; P?<?.001; JAMAO, ??=?0.41; P?<?.001; OPH, ??=?0.40; P?<?.001), as well as minimally or moderately correlated with engagement or mention by Facebook posts (AJO, ??=?0.38; P?<?.001; JAMAO, ??=?0.24; P?<?.001; OPH, ??=?0.20; P?<?.001), news outlet reporting (AJO, ??=?0.12; P?<?.001; JAMAO, ??=?0.38; P?<?.001; OPH, ??=?0.19; P?<?.001), and Twitter posts (AJO, ??=?0.40; P?<?.001; JAMAO, ??=?0.38; P?<?.001; OPH, ??=?0.42; P?<?.001). Conclusions and Relevance  Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that citation rate has a moderate positive correlation with online and social media sharing of research in ophthalmology literature. Peer-reviewed journals may increase their reach and impact by sharing their literature through social media and online platforms.

Measures of Impact for Journals, Articles, and Authors | SpringerLink

“Journals and authors hope the work they do is important and influential. Over time, a number of measures have been developed to measure author and journal impact. These impact factor instruments are expanding and can be difficult to understand. The varying measures provide different perspectives and have varying strengths and weaknesses. A complete picture of impact for individual researchers and journals requires using multiple measures and does not fully capture all aspects of influence. There are only a few players in the scholarly publishing world that collect data on article citations: Clarivate Analytics, Elsevier, and Google Scholar (Table 1). Measures of influence for authors and journals based on article citations use one of these sources and may vary slightly because of differing journal coverage….”

Article Processing Charges, Altmetrics and Citation Impact: Is there an economic rationale?

Abstract:  The present study aims to analyze 1) the relationship between Citation Normalized Score of scientific publications and Article Processing Charges (APCs) of Gold Open Access (OA) publications 2) the determinants of APCs. To do so, we used APCs information provided by the OpenAPC database, citation scores of publications from the WoS database and, for Altmetrics, data from this http URL database, over the period from 2006 to 2019 for 83,752 articles published in 4751 journals belonging to 267 distinct publishers. Results show that contrary to common belief, paying high APCs does not necessarily increase the impact of publications. First, large publishers with high impact are not the most expensive. Second, publishers with the highest APCs are not necessarily the best in terms of impact. Correlation between APCs and impact is moderate. Regarding the determinants, results indicate that APCs are on average 50% higher in hybrid journals than in full OA journals. The results also suggest that Altmetrics do not have a great impact: OA articles that have garnered the most attention on internet are articles with relatively low APCs. Another interesting result is that the “number of readers” indicator is more effective as it is more correlated with classic bibliometrics indicators than the Altmetrics score.

 

Dissemination of Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis of PR… : Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open

Abstract:  Background: 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) recently developed an open access counterpart, PRS Global Open (PRS-GO), to increase dissemination of research in an efficient and widespread manner. We aimed to (1) examine the differences in the dissemination of research published in PRS and PRS-GO, and (2) identify differences in the authorship between the journals.

Methods: 

We extracted data on Altmetric Attention Scores, article mentions, citations, and author characteristics using the Altmetric Explorer Database from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2020. We stratified research outputs into traditional dissemination and social media dissemination. Additionally, multivariable linear regression models were used to examine differences in dissemination between the journals.

Results: 

A total of 1798 articles were included in the analysis (PRS = 1031, PRS-GO = 767). The average Altmetric Attention Score was higher for PRS compared with PRS-GO (PRS = 15.2, PRS-GO = 8.1). Articles in PRS had a greater Altmetric Attention Score (?-coefficient: 7.50, P < 0.001), higher measures of traditional dissemination (?-coefficient: 3.11, P < 0.001), and higher measures of social media dissemination than articles in PRS-GO (?-coefficient: 4.38, P = 0.73).

Conclusions: 

Despite being an open access journal, PRS-GO had significantly fewer measures of social media and traditional dissemination compared with PRS. Given that numerous factors may influence the dissemination of scientific literature, it is imperative that publications identify specific ways to provide a fair advantage for both researchers and readers. Additional initiatives to engage readership for open access may include creative campaigns targeting an appropriate audience.

Dissemination of Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis of PR… : Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open

Abstract:  Background: 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) recently developed an open access counterpart, PRS Global Open (PRS-GO), to increase dissemination of research in an efficient and widespread manner. We aimed to (1) examine the differences in the dissemination of research published in PRS and PRS-GO, and (2) identify differences in the authorship between the journals.

Methods: 

We extracted data on Altmetric Attention Scores, article mentions, citations, and author characteristics using the Altmetric Explorer Database from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2020. We stratified research outputs into traditional dissemination and social media dissemination. Additionally, multivariable linear regression models were used to examine differences in dissemination between the journals.

Results: 

A total of 1798 articles were included in the analysis (PRS = 1031, PRS-GO = 767). The average Altmetric Attention Score was higher for PRS compared with PRS-GO (PRS = 15.2, PRS-GO = 8.1). Articles in PRS had a greater Altmetric Attention Score (?-coefficient: 7.50, P < 0.001), higher measures of traditional dissemination (?-coefficient: 3.11, P < 0.001), and higher measures of social media dissemination than articles in PRS-GO (?-coefficient: 4.38, P = 0.73).

Conclusions: 

Despite being an open access journal, PRS-GO had significantly fewer measures of social media and traditional dissemination compared with PRS. Given that numerous factors may influence the dissemination of scientific literature, it is imperative that publications identify specific ways to provide a fair advantage for both researchers and readers. Additional initiatives to engage readership for open access may include creative campaigns targeting an appropriate audience.

AmeliCA for Indian Scholarly Societies to Open Scholarship – Open Access India

“In India, most scholarly societies only publish their journals in print. If the journals are online, they still use the printer-set portable document formats because they believe that the only trustworthy and legitimate copies are those that are printed. In many cases, the scholarly societies post their entire journals online on their websites. The new publishing technologies do not seem to entice societies to devote much of their time to them. It seems they are content with the status quo. A dedicated staff and funding are needed to design layouts, publish in multiple formats, share meta-data, and generate metrics for articles. Society membership fees are often the main source of funds for these societies, and making their journals freely available online may undermine their sustainability. Since society cannot eliminate printing altogether, they must spend thousands of rupees on the design and layout of the manuscripts, as well as the printing.

Open access is a challenge for scholarly societies! They are still unsure as to the benefits open access can offer when libraries subscribe to their journals and make them available to readers. There are several Indian journals published by international publishers. The societies want to increase the reputation of the journals by utilising the publisher’s technology and reaching a wider audience. …

AmeliCA XML can be used to create digital publishing formats such as epubs, pdfs, HTML, and so on, and the meta-data can be harvested by the interoperable harvesters to develop global repositories online. Since all the works are available online perpetually, authors can showcase their work and invite collaborations from anywhere in the world.

 

The editors and editorial should be trained on the use of free and open technologies like AmeliCA XML and OJS and the authors and research managers need to be educated about open scholarship and open metrics. Already, the Society of Promotion of Horticulture is experimenting with AmeliCA. Joining AmeliCA infrastructure will definitely help the Indian researchers and the people in having a free-of-cost publication and access as the advisors work on implementing a system which will offer less or no cost for publishing and for accessing the published literature. Major advantages to open scholarship are having access to digital publishing software, indexing in the repository of the global south to increase readership, and working with scholars and publishers who share the same vision of creating the world’s open scholarship ecosystem.”

The long-term influence of Open Access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis – ScienceDirect

Abstract:  Objectives

To investigate whether dental journal articles that are Open Access (OA) receive greater citation counts and higher Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) than articles that are non-OA in the long term.

Methods

Eligible dental journal articles published in 2013 were identified via PubMed, and Web of science, Unpaywall and corresponding URLs were manually checked to determine the OA status of each included article 7 years after publication. Citation counts were extracted from Web of Science and Scopus, and AAS was harvested from the Altmetric Explorer. Multivariable general linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between OA and citation count, as well as between OA and AAS.

Results

Among the 755 included articles, 309 (40.9%) were freely available online. Among the 309 OA articles, articles available from publishers accounted for 64.4% (199/309) of all OA articles, and those available through self-archiving accounted for 56.0% (173/309). According to regression analyses, OA articles had significantly greater citation counts (P = 0.001) and AAS (P < 0.001) than non-OA articles.

Conclusions/clinical significance

In the field of dentistry, about 41% of journal articles are OA 7 years after publication, and OA articles available from the publishers are more common than those from authors through self-archiving. OA articles tend to have greater scientific and social impact than non-OA articles in the long term.

bjoern.brembs.blog » Replacing the prestige signal

“Evidence suggests that the prestige signal in our current journals is noisy, expensive and flags unreliable science. There is a lack of evidence that the supposed filter function of prestigious journals is not just a biased random selection of already self-selected input material. As such, massive improvement along several variables can be expected from a more modern implementation of the prestige signal….

How could a more modern system support a ‘prestige signal’ that would actually deserve the moniker? Obviously, if journals were to be replaced by a modern information infrastructure, only our imagination is the limit for which filters the scholarly community may want to implement. Some general ideas may help guide that brainstorming process: If the use of such ‘prestige’ not only in career advancement and funding, but also in the defense of the current system is anything to go by, there should be massive demand for a prestige signal that was worth its price. Today, this prestige arises from selectivity based on expertise (Nature’s slogan always was “the world’s best science”). This entails an expert-based filter that selects only very few (‘the best’) out of of the roughly 3 million peer-reviewed articles being published each year. Importantly, there is no a priori need to objectively specify and determine the criteria for this filter in advance. In a scenario after all journals had been replaced by a modern infrastructure for text, data and code, such services (maybe multiple services, competing for our subscriptions?) need only record not just the articles they selected (as now) but also those they explicitly did not select in addition to the rest that wasn’t even considered. Users (or the services themselves or both) would then be able to compute track records of such services according to criteria that are important to them.

Mimicking current implementations, e.g., the number of citations could be used to determine which service selected the most highly cited articles, how many it missed and which it falsely didn’t even consider. But why stop at bare citations? A modern infrastructure allows for plenty of different markers for scholarly quality. One could just as well use a (already existing) citation typology to differentiate between different types of citations, one could count replications, media mentions, anything, really, to derive track records by which these services may be compared. Given the plentiful demand indicated by the fervent supporters of prestigious journals, services would compete with each other using their track records for the subscriptions of individual and institutional users, providing for innovation at competitive prices, just like any other service market. Such an efficient, competitive marketplace of services, however, can ever only arise, if the current monopoly journals are replaced with a system that allows for such a market to be designed. If demand was not as high as expected, but such a signal nevertheless desired by some, a smaller, more basic implementation could be arranged on a non-profit, open source basis, funded by the vast savings that replacing journals would entail. One may also opt to hold competitions for such services, awarding prizes to the service that best serves the needs of the scholarly community. The possibilities are endless – but only once the scholarly community finds a way to put itself into a position where it has any power over the implementation of its infrastructure.”

 

Mapping Science: Tools for Bibliometric and Altmetric Studies

Introduction. The study investigates whether online attention, carried out on social media or by video tutorials, affects the popularity of these tools in the research community.
Method. We collected data from the Web of Science, Scopus, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, using web-scraping tools. Bibliometrics, altmetrics and webometrics were applied to process the data and to analyse Gephi, Sci2 Tool, VOSviewer, Pajek, CiteSpace and HistCite.
Analysis. Statistical and network analyses, and YouTube analytics, were used. The tools’ interfaces were assessed in the preliminary stage of the comparison. The results were plotted on charts and graphs, and compared.
Results. Social media and video tutorials had minimal influence on the popularity of different tools, as reflected by the number of papers within the Web of Science and Scopus where they featured. However, the small but constant growth of publications mentioning Gephi could be a result of Twitter promotion and a high number of video tutorials. The authors proposed four directions for further comparisons of science mapping software.
Conclusions. This work shows that biblio- and scientometricians are not influenced by social media visibility or accessibility of video tutorials. Future research on this topic could focus on evaluating the tools, their features and usability, or the availability of workshops.

A non-traditional open-source solution for altmetrics | Emerald Insight

Abstract:  Purpose

Altmetric carries the potential of highlighting scholarly content by measuring online interactions much before other forms of traditional metrics grow up. The aim of this paper is to be the single point of access for librarians, scientists, information specialists, researchers and other scholars in public to learn to embed the open-source embeddable badge provided by Altmetric in their websites and showcase their article altmetrics. Libraries can take advantage of this free and innovative tool by incorporating it in their own websites or digital repositories.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper elucidates steps for embedding altimetric institutional repository badges in personal websites or institutional repositories.

Findings

This open-source Altmetric tool tracks a range of sources to catch and collect the scholarly activity and assists in monitoring and reporting the attention surrounding an author’s work in a very timely manner.

Originality/value

This tool is freely available to libraries worldwide.