Advertisement

How Do Scholars Evaluate and Promote Research Outputs? An NTU Case Study

  • Han ZhengEmail author
  • Mojisola Erdt
  • Yin-Leng Theng
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 856)

Abstract

Academic scholars have begun to use diverse social media tools to disseminate and evaluate research outputs. Altmetrics which are indices based on social media, have emerged in recent years and have received attention from scholars from a variety of research areas. This case study aims to investigate how researchers at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) promote their research outputs and how they conduct research evaluation. We conducted semi-structured interviews with eighteen NTU researchers. Results from the study show that NTU researchers still prefer traditional metrics such as citation count, journal impact factor (JIF) and h-index for their research evaluation. They find these metrics are essential determinants to identify the quality of a research paper. In terms of altmetrics, most NTU researchers interviewed are aware of them, but have not yet used them in research evaluation. Furthermore, we found that the main methods used to promote research outputs are attending academic conferences and publishing papers in journals. However, NTU researchers also embark on using social networking sites to disseminate new findings. The results of this study contribute to the previous literature to help understand how social media and altmetrics are influencing the traditional methods of promoting and evaluating research outputs in academia.

Keywords

Social media Traditional metrics Altmetrics Research evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore under its Science of Research, Innovation and Enterprise programme (SRIE Award No. NRF2014-NRF-SRIE001-019). Also, we would like to acknowledge and thank all our interview participants, who kindly volunteered their time and professional opinions to our study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ovadia, S.: When social media meets scholarly publishing. Behav. Soc. Sci. Libr. 32(3), 194–198 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schnitzler, K., Davies, N., Ross, F., Harris, R.: Using Twitter™ to drive research impact: a discussion of strategies, opportunities and challenges. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 59, 15–26 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruzd, A., Staves, K., Wilk, A.: Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(6), 2340–2350 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harley, D., Acord, S.K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., King, C.J.: Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: an exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Final Report. Center for Studies in Higher Education. University of California, Berkley, CA (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weller, K.: Social media and altmetrics: an overview of current alternative approaches to measuring scholarly impact. In: Incentives and Performance, pp. 261–276 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alotaibi, N.M., Guha, D., Fallah, A., Aldakkan, A., Nassiri, F., Badhiwala, J.H., et al.: Social media metrics and bibliometric profiles of neurosurgical departments and journals: Is there a relationship? World Neurosurg. 90, 574–579 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kratz, J.E., Strasser, C.: Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data. PLoS ONE 10(2), e0117619 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bordons, M., Fernández, M., Gómez, I.: Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics 53(2), 195–206 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haustein, S., Siebenlist, T.: Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. J. Informetr. 5(3), 446–457 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sud, P., Thelwall, M.: Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics 98(2), 1131–1143 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S.C.J., Theng, Y.L.: Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics 109(2), 1117–1166 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loach, T.V., Evans, T.S.: Ranking journals using altmetrics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.00451 (2015)
  13. 13.
    Sugimoto, C.R., Work, S., Larivière, V., Haustein, S.: Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: a review of the literature. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68(9), 2037–2062 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonetta, L.: Scientists enter the blogosphere. Cell 129(3), 443–445 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I.: Social media use in the research workflow. Inf. Serv. Use 31(1–2), 61–83 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stutzman, F., Capra, R., Thompson, J.: Factors mediating disclosure in social network sites. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(1), 590–598 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thelwall, M.: A brief history of altmetrics. Res. Trends 37, 3–4 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gruzd, A., Staves, K., Wilk, A.: Tenure and promotion in the age of online social media. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 48(1), 1–9 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Cities (CHESS), Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and InformationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations