Chinese Science Bulletin

, Volume 58, Issue 26, pp 3288–3290 | Cite as

A multi-metric approach for research evaluation

Open Access
Forum Informetrics

Abstract

Background information is provided about the Web 2.0 related term altmetrics. This term is placed in the context of the broader field of informetrics. The term influmetrics is proposed as a better term for altmetrics. The importance of considering research products and not just scientific publications is highlighted. Issues related to peer review and making funding decisions within a multi-metric approach are discussed and brought in relation with the new metrics field.

Keywords

altmetrics influmetrics multi-metric approach informetrics research evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    Nacke O. Informetrie: Eine neuer Name für eine neue Disziplin. Nachr Dok, 1979, 30: 219–226Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tague-Sutcliffe J. An introduction to Informetrics. Inf Process Manage, 1992, 28: 1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson C S. Informetrics. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol, 1999, 34: 107–247Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ingwersen P, Björneborn L. Methodological issues of webometric studies. In: Moed H F, Glänzel W, Schmoch U. eds. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004. 339–369Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bar-Ilan J. Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century-A review. J Informetr, 2008, 2: 1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rousseau R. Informetrics. Libr Inform Ser, 2009, 53: 5–7Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Priem J, Hemminger B M. Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics for scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 2010, 15. Available from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, et al. Alt-metrics: A manifesto. 2010. Available from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Reilly T. What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. 2005. Available from: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piwowar H. Value all research products. Nature, 2013, 493: 159Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rousseau R. A view on big data and its relation to Informetrics. Chin J Libr Inf Sci, 2012, 5: 12–26Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Smith J A, et al. Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: A comparison of download and citation data. Inf Process Manag, 2005, 41: 1419–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bollen J, Van de Sompel H. Mapping the structure of science through usage. Scientometrics, 2006, 69: 227–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bollen J, Van de Sompel H. Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol, 2008, 59: 136–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, et al. Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS One, 2009, 4: e4803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wan J K. Hua P H, Rousseau R, et al. The journal download immediacy index (DII): Experiences using a Chinese full-text database. Scientometrics, 2010, 82: 555–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Els W P, Jansz C N M, Le Pair C. The citation gap between printed and instrumental output of technological research: The case of the electron microscope. Scientometrics, 1989, 17: 415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jansz M C N. Some thoughts on the interaction between scientometrics and science and technology policy. Scientometrics, 2000, 47: 253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cronin B, Weaver S. The praxis of acknowledgement: From bibliometrics to influmetrics. Rev Esp Doc Cient, 1995, 18: 172–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheung M K. Altmetrics: Too soon for use in assessment. Nature, 2013, 494: 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bar-Ilan J, Haustein S, Peters I, et al. Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the Social Web. In: Archambault E, Gingras Y, Larivière V, eds. Proceedings of STI 2012. Montréal: Science-Metrix, 2012. 98–109Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Power C, Elliott J. Cohort profile: 1958 British Birth Cohort (National Child Development Study). Int J Epidemiol, 2006, 35: 34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lozano G A. A new criterion for allocating research funds:’ Impact per dollar’. Curr Sci, 2010, 99: 1187–1188Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao S X, Ye F Y. h-Efficiency: Measuring input-output performance of research funds. Curr Sci, 2011, 101: 21–22Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martin B R, Irvine J. Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Res Pol, 1983, 12: 61–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haustein S. Multidimensional Journal Evaluation. Analyzing Scientific Periodicals beyond the Impact Factor. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering TechnologyVIVES (Association KU Leuven)ZeedijkOostende, Belgium
  2. 2.Universiteit Antwerpen (UA), IBWStadscampus, VenusstraatAntwerpen, Belgium
  3. 3.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.School of Information ManagementNanjing UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations