Article-level metrics: a comparison between publishers. Colin Batchelor Data Science Bologna, September 2018

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Article-level metrics: a comparison between publishers. Colin Batchelor Data Science Bologna, September 2018"

Laura Pearson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Article-level metrics: a comparison between publishers Colin Batchelor Data Science Bologna, September 2018

2 Overview Cambridge Metrics group Article-level metrics How do they correlate? How do they relate to Snowball metrics?

3 Cambridge Metrics group First meeting January 2017 Initially RSC, PLoS, elife, CUP and EBI Company of Biologists, Royal Society and IoP have joined subsequently. Regular meetings where we discuss metrics, UX, machine learning, open source, usage and much much more

4 Company of Biologists Royal Society of Chemistry Public Library of Science elife Cambridge University Press

5 Article-level metrics by publisher Number of citations: all Number of downloads: some Age of article: all Mendeley reads by status and country: all AltMetric scores by medium: all Number of authors: all Number of affiliations: some OA or not?: all (elife/plos implicitly) Article type: all Journal: all (elife implicitly) Interdisciplinarity: RSC

6 Dataset sizes Sizes are for articles where all of the metrics were present: RSC: articles PLoS: 9872 articles elife: 4578 articles CuP: 3661 articles CoB: 2694 articles

7 Dimensionality reduction We re looking for metrics that measure something We re looking for metrics that are statistically distinct Exploratory factor analysis showed clear groupings of ALMs that were largely consistent between publishers. However: fits showed small p-values and large χ 2 -values; bad in this context.

10 Non-negative matrix factorisation Another clustering method! Popular in genetic analyses to obtain metagenes, image processing to obtain basis images. R package (NMF) has (largely) excellent visualisation tools.

number of authors downloads Mendeley citations tweetam postsam accountam All3MRankAM JournalRankAM AllRankAM MendeleyAM Journal3MRankAM AM Cambridge University Press Mendeley citations downloads

11 number of authors downloads Mendeley citations tweetam postsam accountam All3MRankAM JournalRankAM AllRankAM MendeleyAM Journal3MRankAM AM Cambridge University Press Mendeley citations downloads number of authors tweetam postsam MendeleyAM accountam All3MRankAM JournalRankAM Journal3MRankAM AllRankAM downloads number of authors Mendeley citations tweetam postsam MendeleyAM accountam All3MRankAM JournalRankAM Journal3MRankAM AllRankAM downloads number of authors Mendeley citations MendeleyAM tweetam accountam postsam All3MRankAM JournalRankAM Journal3MRankAM AllRankAM All3MRankAM JournalRankAM Journal3MRankAM AllRankAM downloads number of authors Mendeley citations MendeleyAM tweetam accountam postsam tweetam accountam postsam MendeleyAM Mendeley citations downloads number of authors All3MRankAM JournalRankAM Journal3MRankAM AllRankAM

13 Snowball Metrics Intended for internal use within institutions. Divided into Input Metrics (grant applications), Process Metrics (income) and Output Metrics (scholarly output and metrics thereof).

14 Snowball metrics Publications and citations Collaboration Societal impact Enterprise activities/economic development metrics Post-graduate research metrics Scholarly output Collaboration Altmetrics IP volume (patents filed, granted, active; licences) Time to award of doctoral degree Citation count Collaboration publication share Public engagement IP income Destination of research student leavers Citations per output Collaboration impact (citations) Academic recognition Sustainable spinoffs h-index Collaboration field-weighted citation impact Spin-off-related finances Field-weighted citation impact Outputs in top percentiles Academiccorporate collaboration Academiccorporate collaboration impact (a) number of internationally collaborative outputs (b) internationally collaborative outputs as percentage of total outputs (c) number of nationally collaborative outputs (d) nationally collaborative outputs as percentage of total outputs Publications in top journal percentiles (a) number of internationally collaborative outputs per FTE (b) number of nationally collaborative outputs per FTE

15 Conclusions The Cambridge Metrics group shows publishers working together on problems of general interest. Some ALMs group together: Scientific interest (downloads, collaboration) Scientific relevance (Mendeley, citations) Journal ranking (AM) Social interest (AM) Interdisciplinarity is hard to track.

16 Thanks Company of Biologists, Cambridge University Press, elife, Public Library of Science, Data Science at the Royal Society of Chemistry and the organisers

MEASURING EMERGING SCIENTIFIC IMPACT AND CURRENT RESEARCH TRENDS: A COMPARISON OF ALTMETRIC AND HOT PAPERS INDICATORS

MEASURING EMERGING SCIENTIFIC IMPACT AND CURRENT RESEARCH TRENDS: A COMPARISON OF ALTMETRIC AND HOT PAPERS INDICATORS DR. EVANGELIA A.E.C. LIPITAKIS evangelia.lipitakis@thomsonreuters.com BIBLIOMETRIE2014