habib niso altmetrics dec 2013
TRANSCRIPT
Researcher Awareness + Perception:A year in review
NISO Altmetrics Project MeetingWashington, D.C. – December 11, 2013
Michael Habib, MSLSSr. Product Manager, [email protected]: @habibhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-8860-7565
About 1 year ago… October 2012
Background & approach:
54,442 individuals were randomly selected from Scopus
3,090 respondents completed
Representative response by country and discipline.
Error margin ± 1.5%, at 90% confidence levels
2
Adrian Mulligan, Gemma Deakin and Rebekah DuttonElsevier Research & Academic Relations
3
Impact Factor 82%
H-Index 43%
Journal Usage Factor 10%
SJR 4%
Altmetrics ???
Impact Factor is published by Thomson Reuters, Altmetrics were least well known
10/12: Most widely known by researchers
4
10/12: Most widely known by researchers
Impact Factor 82%
H-Index 43%
Journal Usage Factor 10%
SJR 4%
Altmetrics 1%
5
Impact Factor 88%
H-Index 70%
Journal Usage Factor 14%
SJR 14%
Altmetrics ???% Awareness of quality metrics (n=326, Q3 13) – From internal study by Elsevier Research & Academic Relations - Mingxin Zhou / Cat herine Fielding-Huda - October 2013
One year on? Most widely known by researchers in Q3 (n=326)
6
Impact Factor 88% (+6)
H-Index 70% (+27)
Journal Usage Factor 14% (+4)
SJR 14% (+10)
Altmetrics 5% (+4)
One year on? Most widely known by researchers in Q3 (n=326)
7
Generally metrics with the highest awareness are also considered to be the most useful
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Altmetrics
F1000
Journal Usage Factor
h-index
EigenfactorSJR
SNIP
Impact factor
R² = 0.697191374481422
Percentage of respondents that are aware of the metric
Perc
enta
ge o
f aw
are
resp
onde
nts
that
cho
se t
he
met
ric
as o
ne o
f the
mos
t us
eful
The trendline shows the linear trend for the relationship between awareness and usage of metrics
Metrics above the line have lower levels of awareness, but are more likely to be rated as useful than the typical awareness-usage relationship
Metrics below the line have higher levels of awareness, but are less likely to be rated as useful than the typical awareness-usage relationship
* This is the 2012 data again See appendix for background and approach. Research by Elsevier Research & Academic Relations. Impact Factor is published by Thomson Reuters,
n = 326 (Q3 13) Yes10%
No90%
% Awareness of Altmetric for Scopus
32 (10%) Scopus users stated they know of Altmetric for Scopus. 25 of them think it very useful or somewhat useful.
Assessing the usefulness of potential quality metrics: by age
Significant difference between subset and total (subset higher)
Significant difference between subset and total (subset lower)
Under 36 (n=540) 36-45 (n=920) 46-55 (n=819) 56-65 (n=507) Over 65 (n=242) TOTAL (n=3,090)
Article views/downloads (for
articles) 43%
Citations from materials that are in
repositories 43%
Share in social network mentions (for
articles) 16%
Number of readers (for articles) 40%
Number of followers (for researchers) 31%
Votes or ratings (for articles) 24%
A metric that measures the contribution an
individual makes to peer review (for researchers)
28%
A score based on reviewer assessment (for
articles) 28%
Q3 Thinking about possible new measures of research productivity, how useful do you think the below would be in assessing the quality of a researcher or a research article?(By age) % Think it would be extremely/very useful
43%
49%
21%
42%
38%
35%
34%
33%
44%
45%
18%
41%
33%
24%
29%
28%
45%
41%
15%
39%
28%
22%
27%
27%
44%
41%
12%
41%
30%
22%
26%
27%
36%
37%
13%
35%
30%
19%
24%
27%
Assessing the usefulness of potential quality metrics: by region (1 of 2)
Significant difference between subset and total (subset higher)
Significant difference between subset and total (subset lower)
Africa (n=72)
APAC (n=803)
Eastern Europe (n=183)
Latin America (n=182)
TOTAL (n=3,090)
Article views/downloads (for articles) 43%
Citations from materials that are in repositories 43%
Share in social network mentions (for articles) 16%
Number of readers (for articles) 40%
Number of followers (for researchers) 31%
Votes or ratings (for articles) 24%
A metric that measures the contribution an individual makes to peer review (for researchers) 28%
A score based on reviewer assessment (for articles) 28%
Q3 Thinking about possible new measures of research productivity, how useful do you think the below would be in assessing the quality of a researcher or a research article? (By region, slide 1 of 2) % Think it would be extremely/very useful
56%
51%
26%
49%
36%
33%
40%
44%
50%
55%
27%
46%
46%
29%
35%
36%
50%
49%
19%
45%
41%
30%
28%
26%
50%
49%
21%
45%
34%
24%
32%
35%
Assessing the usefulness of potential quality metrics: by region (2 of 2)
Significant difference between subset and total (subset higher)
Significant difference between subset and total (subset lower)
Middle East (n=47) North America (n=770) Western Europe (n=1,033) TOTAL (n=3,090)
Article views/downloads (for articles) 43%
Citations from materials that are in repositories 43%
Share in social network mentions (for articles) 16%
Number of readers (for articles) 40%
Number of followers (for researchers) 31%
Votes or ratings (for articles) 24%
A metric that measures the contribution an individual makes to peer review (for
researchers) 28%
A score based on reviewer assessment (for articles) 28%
Q3 Thinking about possible new measures of research productivity, how useful do you think the below would be in assessing the quality of a researcher or a research article? (By region, slide 2 of 2) % Think it would be extremely/very useful
40%
40%
19%
43%
32%
28%
32%
34%
41%
42%
10%
36%
23%
19%
26%
26%
36%
32%
11%
36%
23%
22%
23%
22%
Michael Habib, MSLS
Sr. Product Manager, Scopus
Twitter: @habib
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8860-7565
Thank you!
Background & approach
Who & when: 54,442 individuals were randomly selected from Scopus. They were approached to complete the study in October 2012. To ensure an unbiased response Elsevier’s name was only revealed at the end of the survey.
Responses: The online survey took around 15-20 minutes to complete. 3,090 respondents completed it, representing a response rate of 5.7%.
Data has not been weighted. There was a representative response by country and discipline.
Statistical testing: Error margin ± 1.5%, at 90% confidence levels. When comparing the score for main group and sub-groups we have used a Z test of proportion to identify differences between the overall average and the sub-group (90% confidence levels), when there are 30 or more responses.
13
Adrian Mulligan, Gemma Deakin and Rebekah DuttonElsevier Research & Academic Relations