评估性altmetrics:有证据表明它在研究评估中的应用吗?

Frontiers in research metrics and analytics Pub Date : 2023-07-25 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frma.2023.1188131
Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado, Daniel Torres-Salinas
{"title":"评估性altmetrics:有证据表明它在研究评估中的应用吗?","authors":"Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado,&nbsp;Daniel Torres-Salinas","doi":"10.3389/frma.2023.1188131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Altmetrics have been demonstrated as a promising tool for analyzing scientific communication on social media. Nevertheless, its application for research evaluation remains underdeveloped, despite the advancement of research in the study of diverse scientific interactions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper develops a method for applying altmetrics in the evaluation of researchers, focusing on a case study of the Environment/Ecology ESI field publications by researchers at the University of Granada. We considered Twitter as a mirror of social attention, news outlets as media, and Wikipedia as educational, exploring mentions from these three sources and the associated actors in their respective media, contextualizing them using various metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis evaluated different dimensions such as the type of audience, local attention, engagement generated around the mention, and the profile of the actor. Our methodology effectively provided dashboards that gave a comprehensive view of the different instances of social attention at the author level.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The use of altmetrics for research evaluation presents significant potential, as shown by our case study. While this is a novel method, our results suggest that altmetrics could provide valuable insights into the social attention that researchers garner. This can be an important tool for research evaluation, expanding our understanding beyond traditional metrics.</p>","PeriodicalId":73104,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10407088/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluative altmetrics: is there evidence for its application to research evaluation?\",\"authors\":\"Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado,&nbsp;Daniel Torres-Salinas\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frma.2023.1188131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Altmetrics have been demonstrated as a promising tool for analyzing scientific communication on social media. Nevertheless, its application for research evaluation remains underdeveloped, despite the advancement of research in the study of diverse scientific interactions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper develops a method for applying altmetrics in the evaluation of researchers, focusing on a case study of the Environment/Ecology ESI field publications by researchers at the University of Granada. We considered Twitter as a mirror of social attention, news outlets as media, and Wikipedia as educational, exploring mentions from these three sources and the associated actors in their respective media, contextualizing them using various metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis evaluated different dimensions such as the type of audience, local attention, engagement generated around the mention, and the profile of the actor. Our methodology effectively provided dashboards that gave a comprehensive view of the different instances of social attention at the author level.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The use of altmetrics for research evaluation presents significant potential, as shown by our case study. While this is a novel method, our results suggest that altmetrics could provide valuable insights into the social attention that researchers garner. This can be an important tool for research evaluation, expanding our understanding beyond traditional metrics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10407088/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1188131\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in research metrics and analytics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1188131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

引言:Altmetrics已被证明是分析社交媒体上科学传播的一种很有前途的工具。然而,尽管在研究各种科学相互作用方面取得了进展,但其在研究评估中的应用仍然不成熟。方法:本文开发了一种将altmetrics应用于研究人员评估的方法,重点是格拉纳达大学研究人员对环境/生态ESI领域出版物的案例研究。我们将推特视为社会关注的一面镜子,将新闻媒体视为媒体,将维基百科视为教育性的,探索这三个来源的提及以及各自媒体中的相关参与者,并使用各种指标将其置于情境中。结果:我们的分析评估了不同的维度,如观众类型、当地关注度、围绕提及产生的参与度以及演员的形象。我们的方法有效地提供了仪表盘,可以全面了解作者层面的不同社会关注实例。讨论:如我们的案例研究所示,使用altmetrics进行研究评估具有巨大的潜力。虽然这是一种新方法,但我们的研究结果表明,altmetrics可以为研究人员获得的社会关注提供有价值的见解。这可以成为研究评估的重要工具,将我们的理解扩展到传统指标之外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluative altmetrics: is there evidence for its application to research evaluation?

Introduction: Altmetrics have been demonstrated as a promising tool for analyzing scientific communication on social media. Nevertheless, its application for research evaluation remains underdeveloped, despite the advancement of research in the study of diverse scientific interactions.

Methods: This paper develops a method for applying altmetrics in the evaluation of researchers, focusing on a case study of the Environment/Ecology ESI field publications by researchers at the University of Granada. We considered Twitter as a mirror of social attention, news outlets as media, and Wikipedia as educational, exploring mentions from these three sources and the associated actors in their respective media, contextualizing them using various metrics.

Results: Our analysis evaluated different dimensions such as the type of audience, local attention, engagement generated around the mention, and the profile of the actor. Our methodology effectively provided dashboards that gave a comprehensive view of the different instances of social attention at the author level.

Discussion: The use of altmetrics for research evaluation presents significant potential, as shown by our case study. While this is a novel method, our results suggest that altmetrics could provide valuable insights into the social attention that researchers garner. This can be an important tool for research evaluation, expanding our understanding beyond traditional metrics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Navigating algorithm bias in AI: ensuring fairness and trust in Africa. The ethics of knowledge sharing: a feminist examination of intellectual property rights and open-source materials in gender transformative methodologies. Complexity and phase transitions in citation networks: insights from artificial intelligence research. Designing measures of complex collaborations with participatory, evidence-centered design. Patent data-driven analysis of literature associations with changing innovation trends.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1