Skip to main content

A multi-metric approach for research evaluation

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.

References

  1. Nacke O. Informetrie: Eine neuer Name für eine neue Disziplin. Nachr Dok, 1979, 30: 219–226

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tague-Sutcliffe J. An introduction to Informetrics. Inf Process Manage, 1992, 28: 1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson C S. Informetrics. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol, 1999, 34: 107–247

    Google Scholar 

  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. 339–369

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bar-Ilan J. Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century-A review. J Informetr, 2008, 2: 1–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rousseau R. Informetrics. Libr Inform Ser, 2009, 53: 5–7

    Google Scholar 

  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. Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, et al. Alt-metrics: A manifesto. 2010. Available from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/

    Google Scholar 

  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. Piwowar H. Value all research products. Nature, 2013, 493: 159

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rousseau R. A view on big data and its relation to Informetrics. Chin J Libr Inf Sci, 2012, 5: 12–26

    Google Scholar 

  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: 1419–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bollen J, Van de Sompel H. Mapping the structure of science through usage. Scientometrics, 2006, 69: 227–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 136–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Hagberg A, et al. Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS One, 2009, 4: e4803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 555–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 415–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jansz M C N. Some thoughts on the interaction between scientometrics and science and technology policy. Scientometrics, 2000, 47: 253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cronin B, Weaver S. The praxis of acknowledgement: From bibliometrics to influmetrics. Rev Esp Doc Cient, 1995, 18: 172–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheung M K. Altmetrics: Too soon for use in assessment. Nature, 2013, 494: 176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 98–109

    Google Scholar 

  22. Power C, Elliott J. Cohort profile: 1958 British Birth Cohort (National Child Development Study). Int J Epidemiol, 2006, 35: 34–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lozano G A. A new criterion for allocating research funds:’ Impact per dollar’. Curr Sci, 2010, 99: 1187–1188

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhao S X, Ye F Y. h-Efficiency: Measuring input-output performance of research funds. Curr Sci, 2011, 101: 21–22

    Google Scholar 

  25. Martin B R, Irvine J. Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Res Pol, 1983, 12: 61–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Haustein S. Multidimensional Journal Evaluation. Analyzing Scientific Periodicals beyond the Impact Factor. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rousseau Ronald.

Additional information

This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.

About this article

Cite this article

Ronald, R., Fred, Y.Y. A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chin. Sci. Bull. 58, 3288–3290 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-013-5939-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-013-5939-3

Keywords

  • altmetrics
  • influmetrics
  • multi-metric approach
  • informetrics
  • research evaluation