“The Web lets us move beyond the article and beyond the Impact Factor. But, strangely…we haven’t. Or perhaps it’s not so strange when we consider that the scholarly reward system we’ve inherited is in fact built squarely on these two features.”
Altmetrics pioneers Jason Priem & Heather Piwowar announce ImpactStory, a new webapp aiming to provide a broader picture of impact to help scholars understand more about the audience and reach of their research.
“The “publish or perish” model of the academic world has followed a similar pattern since the middle of the last century. It generally takes around seven years from the conception of an idea, to the publishing of a paper, to the point where a critical mass of citations are formally gathered around it.”
Claire Bower on the excellent BMJ Web Development Blog covers Plum Analytics.
“But I also have a deeper concern, and one I haven’t seen discussed. It’s a problem that, if it is not solved, utterly undermines the altmetrics programme. It’s that we have no concrete idea what it is they are trying to measure.”
Bob O’Hara at Deep Thoughts and Silliness raises some valid points.
“A recent Nature editorial entitled Count on me [..] outlined the need for agreement on better metrics for assessing scholarly impact and consensus about their derivation.”
Jenn Web interviews standards guru Todd Carpenter of NISO for the Tools of Change “Transforming Publishing” blog.
“But what are the issues surrounding the use of altmetrics? Are tweetations, twimpact factors and the twindex the emperor’s new data, or the true inheritors of Eugene Garfield’s crown?”