| Title |
Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Loet Leydesdorff, Paul Wouters, Lutz Bornmann |
| Abstract |
Bibliometric indicators such as journal impact factors, h-indices, and total citation counts are algorithmic artifacts that can be used in research evaluation and management. These artifacts have no meaning by themselves, but receive their meaning from attributions in institutional practices. We distinguish four main stakeholders in these practices: (1) producers of bibliometric data and indicators; (2) bibliometricians who develop and test indicators; (3) research managers who apply the indicators; and (4) the scientists being evaluated with potentially competing career interests. These different positions may lead to different and sometimes conflicting perspectives on the meaning and value of the indicators. The indicators can thus be considered as boundary objects which are socially constructed in translations among these perspectives. This paper proposes an analytical clarification by listing an informed set of (sometimes unsolved) problems in bibliometrics which can also shed light on the tension between simple but invalid indicators that are widely used (e.g., the h-index) and more sophisticated indicators that are not used or cannot be used in evaluation practices because they are not transparent for users, cannot be calculated, or are difficult to interpret. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 11% |
| Ukraine | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 44% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 3 | 2% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 166 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 29 | 16% |
| Researcher | 26 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 41 | 23% |
| Unknown | 34 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 53 | 30% |
| Computer Science | 23 | 13% |
| Engineering | 10 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 32 | 18% |
| Unknown | 44 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,198,147
of 24,007,780 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#196
of 2,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,755
of 325,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#6
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,007,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,418 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.