Α. Τόγια1, Ε. Κοσέογλου2 , Σ. Ζαπουνίδου2 Εναλλακτικοί δείκτες απήχησης: ανάλυση άρθρων που δημοσιεύθηκαν από μέλη του ΑΠΘ κατά το διάστημα 2010-2016 Α. Τόγια1, Ε. Κοσέογλου2 , Σ. Ζαπουνίδου2 1 Τμήμα Βιβλιοθηκονομίας και Συστημάτων Πληροφόρησης, ΑΤΕΙ Θεσσαλονίκης, Ελλάδα 2 Βιβλιοθήκη και Κέντρο Πληροφόρησης, Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης, Ελλάδα  What I’d like to present you today is an exploratory study of altmetrics for papers authored by a sample of Greek researchers. 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Περιεχόμενα Εκτίμηση αντίκτυπου και παραδοσιακοί δείκτες Altmetrics: ένα νέο εργαλείο παρακολούθησης της επιρροής Η παρούσα έρευνα Τελικές εκτιμήσεις My presentations has four parts but don’t be afraid is not very long. I’ll begin by looking at the assessment of research impact and the traditional indicators, then I’ll move on to altmetrics and their potential to track the diffusion of research output, after that I’ll go on to the present study, its methodology, its findings and some conclusions drawn from them. 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Μέτρηση απήχησης Αυτοαξιολόγηση Λογοδοσία Χρηματοδότηση Σχεδιασμός Ποια είναι λοιπον η λογική πίσω από τη μέτρηση της απήχησης του ερευνητικού έργου? Στην πραγματικότητα η λογικη είναι αρκετά σύνθετη και πολυπαραγοντική, μπορούμε όμως να απομονώσουμε 4 βασικούς λόγους. Η μέτρηση της απήχησης λοιπον Επιτρέπει στα ιδρύματα ανώτατης εκπαίδευσης να παρακολουθήσουν τις επιδόσεις τους και να διαπιστώσουν τη συνεισφορά του έργου τους Δειχνει σε κυβερνήσεις, φορείς χρηματοδότησης και σε όλους τους ενδιαφερόμενους την αξία της έρευνας και δικαιολγείται η δημόσια δαπάνη γι αυτή Βοηθάει στην καλύτερη κατανόηση της κοινωνικοοικονομικής αξίας της έρευνας και στη λήψη αποφάσεων χρηματοδότησης Συμβάλλει στην κατανόηση του τρόπου με τον οποίο η έρευνα έχει απήχηση και στην ανάπτυξη καλύτερων και αποτελεσματικότερων τρόπων αύξησης της απήχησης (Penfield et al., 2014) 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Παραδοσιακοί δείκτες 1900 Αρχές Βιβλιομετρικής έρευνας 1955 Impact factor 1961 SSI 1969 Εμφάνιση του όρου “Βιβλιομετρία” 1960-1970 Aνάλυση ετεροαναφορών 1997 Εμφάνιση του όρου “webometrics” 2005 h-index The conversation about how to measure scholarly impact is probably as old as scholarship itself. Traditional metrics are based on indicators some of which, like the IF, are more than 50 years old. The common approach is to measure the impact of articles, journals, researchers and scientific fields using citation counts. Information on the number of citations is published in citation databases such as Web of Science or Scopus 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Οι ετεροαναφορές λένε μόνο ένα μέρος της ιστορίας However, certain limitations prevent these measurements from being comprehensive, foolproof and reliable, while there are voices insisting that they cannot convey the full impact 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Νέα εργαλεία μέτρησης της απήχησης Altmetrics: Νέα εργαλεία μέτρησης της απήχησης The rise of the social web and its uptake by scholars has led to the creation of altmetrics Altmertics provide new methods to track scholarship beyond traditional citation metrics They measure Webdriven scholarly interactions, such as how research is tweeted, blogged about, bookmarked, or mentioned in grey literature/patents/policy documents They capture attention from a variety of audiences: scholars, governments, practitioners, interested parties and the public 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Altmetrics Παραδοσιακοί δείκτες Περιοδικά, social media, news outlets, γκρίζα βιβλιογραφία κ.λπ. Ετεροαναφορές, mentions, views/downloads, Άρθρα, data sets, παρουσιάσεις κ.λπ. Ανοιχτά δεδομένα-διαφανής υπολογισμός Επιστήμονες, επαγγελματίες, δημοσιογράφοι, ευρύ κοινό κ.λπ. Ταχύτητα, αμεσότητα Περιοδικά Ετεροαναφορές Άρθρα περιοδικών Συνδρομητικές πηγές-αδιαφανείς αλγόριθμοι Επιστήμονες Μεγάλο citation window

Altmetrics: τι γνωρίζουμε μέχρι σήμερα Χαμηλή κάλυψη (e.g., Alperin, 2015; Costas et al., 2014, 2015; Haustein, Costas, et al., 2015; Priem, Piwowar, & Hemminger, 2012) Η κάλυψη αυξάνεται με τον χρόνο (e.g., Bar-Ilan et al., 2012; Haustein, Peters, Sugimoto, et al., 2014) Διαφορές μεταξύ επιστημονικών πεδίων και τύπων δημοσιεύσεων (e.g., Costas et al., 2014; Haustein, Costas, & Larivière, 2015; Haustein, Peters, Sugimoto, et al., 2014; Htoo & Na, 2015; Mohammadi & Thelwall, 2014) Χαμηλή συσχέτιση με τις αναφορές (e.g., Alperin, 2015; Costas, Zahedi, & Wouters, 2015; Haustein, Costas, & Larivière, 2015; Bar-Ilan et al., 2012; Haustein, Larivière, Thelwall, et al., 2014; Htoo & Na, 2015) Studies have found relatively low coverage of research papers in social media, with the exception of social reference management services, like Mendeley, which have significantly higher rates There is evidence, however, that social media coverage is increasing over time, and varies by discipline and specialty. Articles from biomedical and health sciences are more popular. Articles from the social sciences and humanities also exhibit a high altmetric activity, while their altmetric density is similar to their citation density. Reviews, editorials, and news articles are more covered across different social media sources Correlations between altmetrics and traditional citations are low or moderate, although in some cases stronger correlations have been found between citations and Twitter mentions 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Altmetrics και ΑΠΘ (1) Σκοπός As altmetrics are in a preliminary stage of research in Greece, what we wanted with this micro case-study was to familiarize ourselves with alternative indicators and get an overview of the coverage of altmetric sources for aristotle university publications. 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Altmetrics και ΑΠΘ(2) Ερευνητικά ερωτήματα In particular, the study focuses on the following research questions: How much and what kind of altmetrics data exist for the documents authored by AUTh faculty members and published between 2010 and 2016? What is the presence of altmetrics for AUTh publications across different subject fields? What is the demographic breakdown of the mentions for the top mentioned publications? We believe that this is the first step in exploring new ways to assess university’s research. In addition, university library views the experimentation with altmetrics as another way to connect scholarly communication to the needs of their researchers and the opportunities for them. 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης (ΑΠΘ) 11 Σχολές – 41 Τμήματα που καλύπτουν όλους τους επιστημονικούς τομείς 60,350 προπτυχιακοί φοιτητές 10,000 μεταπτυχιακοί φοιτητές 1,850 μέλη ΔΕΠ 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Συλλογή δεδομένων Scopus Atmetric Explorer for Institutions Άρθρα με DOI we used Scopus to collect all research articles stating AUTh as the affiliation of at least one author and published from 2010 to 2016. The altmetric data used in the study originated from Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, a service provided by Altmetric.com. Altmetric Explorer gathers article-level metrics from a range of sources, including policy documents, social networks, mainstream media and blogs, and other online sources, such as Wikipedia and multimedia platforms. data were gathered only for publications having a DOI 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Αποτελέσματα 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Κάλυψη σε Altmetrics There were a large number of DOIs missing in Scopus. About 80% of the publications retrieved had a DOI and of them only 22% had some kind of altmetrics 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Altmetrics στο χρόνο There was a clear increase over the years, with coverage ranging from about 5% for items published in 2010 to above 25% for documents published in 2016 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Αναφορές ανά πηγή The presence of altmetrics was different from each source. Around 81% of all mentions came from Twitter. Facebook was a distant second (7.5%), followed by news outlets. All other sources had very low or negligible coverage 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Altmetrics στις διάφορες Επιστήμες(1) The distribution of altmetrics across different subject fields revealed that Medical Sciences had by far the highest number of publications with altmetric scores, followed by Science, and Artts Humanities & Social Sciences 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Altmetrics στις διάφορες Επιστήμες (2) Citations density Altmetrics density Ιατρικές Επιστήμες 9.4 2.7 Μηχανική 0.8 0.2 Κοινωνικές, Ανθρωπιστικές Επιστήμες & Τέχνες 0.6 0.9 Θετικές Επιστήμες 8.2 2.3 Regarding the citation density and the altmetrics density (i.e. the average number of citations or altmetrics per publication), we can see how the highest altmetrics density is for publications published in the Medical Sciences, followed by the Sciences and the Social sciences and humanities. From another perspective, if we focus on the differences between the citation density and the altmetrics density, we can see how the field of Social sciences and humanities has actually a slightly higher density of altmetrics per paper than citations, while for the other fields altmetrics have always a lower density compared to citations. 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Οι δημοσιεύσεις με τις περισσότερες αναφορές (mentions) (1) This table presents the twenty publications with the highest Altmetric Attention Score. This is a score which is calculated automatically by Altmetric.com, and is based on three main factors: the number of people who mention an item, the sources of mentions, and the authors of mentions. All articles have been published in highly prestigious journals, mostly in the field of medicine, among which stand out the Lancet and the Nature. 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Οι δημοσιεύσεις με τις περισσότερες αναφορές (mentions)(2) There seems to be no obvious relationship between the Altmetric Attention Score and the number of citations, as papers with high score have very few citations and vice-versa. 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Δημογραφικά στοιχεία στο Twitter As Twitter was the main source of altmetrics, we examined the demographics collected from the profiles of tweeters who shared the highly mentioned papers. The overwhelming majority of tweets (over 70%) have been posted by members of the public who do not link to scholarly literature. Approximately one quarter of the mentions came from members of the scientific community (researchers or practitioners), while around 3% came from journalists, bloggers or journal editors 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Τελικές παρατηρήσεις(1) Χαμηλή κάλυψη Υπεροχή Twitter Αναφορές από ευρύ κοινό Διαφορετικό είδος απήχησης; Μεγαλύτερη κάλυψη στις Ιατρικές Επιστήμες Προστιθέμενη αξία στις Κοινωνικές και Ανθρωπιστικές; News outlets, policy documents Although this is a small-scale study, it seems to confirm the general patterns in the presence of altmetrics identified in previous studies. The coverage of altmetric indicators observed was rather low (17%), and similar to that reported earlier in the literature. Twitter emerged as the most prevalent source, accounted for over 80% of total mentions. In earlier studies Twitter was ranked second, after Mendeley, in social media activity associated with scholarly articles [27,36]. Twitter demographics revealed that overwhelmingly more attention comes from the general public, a finding that contributes to the idea that altmetrics are different from citations, as they trace a different kind of post-publication reception of research Altmetric mentions were more frequent in Medical Sciences a pattern observed by other researchers as well although the absolute value of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences publications mentioned in social media is relatively small, their percentage suggests a significant altmetric activity, a finding supporting the argument that “altmetrics scores could have an interesting added value for the analysis of humanities and social sciences, fields that are not well represented by traditional citation analysis” An interesting finding was the mentions of publications in mainstream media and policy documents. This finding indicates a broader impact of AUTh’s research, difficult to be captured through other means. In recent years, social impact of research is gaining increasing importance, as funding bodies, evaluators, and national assessment systems are interested in understanding how research is used outside the scientific community. In particular, mentions in policy documents signify that research preformed in AUTh influences the policy-making process, and has tangible/actual effects on larger society. 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Τελικές παρατηρήσεις(2) Ανάγκη για περαιτέρω έρευνα Mεγαλύτερο και ποικίλο δείγμα Μικτή ερευνητική μεθοδολογία Συσχέτιση με ετεροαναφορές Διαδικασίες, λόγοι, πλαίσιο αναφορών (Haustein, 2015) Χρήση κοινωνικών δικτύων από τους Έλληνες ερευνητές και στάσεις απέναντι στην Ανοιχτή Επιστήμη https://101innovations.wordpress.com/ altmetrics ≠ Altmetric Explorer This is an exploratory study confined to publications authored by researchers of a single institution, and as such it has several limitations.. More research is needed in order to understand the role of social media in academia and scholarly communication and fully explore the meaning of altmetrics. Finally, it should be noted that altmetrics may include more and different metrics than those provided by Altmetric.com. Altmetric Explorer is not but a tool for detecting online scholarly activity and should be carefully distinguished from altmetrics as a concept. If we only see what the specific tool enables us to see, that could be a serious limitation on how we view and comprehend alternative indicators 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

Ευχαριστίες Thanks to Altmetric.com for providing us access to conduct our research. And to Altmetric Ambassador Program for guidance regarding use of altmetrics in academic libraries. 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

References Alperin, J. P. (2015). Geographic variation in social media metrics: an analysis of Latin American journal articles. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 289–304. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0176 Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators Montreal Canada 58 Sept 2012 (Vol. 52900, pp. 98–109). Montreal. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611 Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2014). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, n/a–n/a. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23309 Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media: Large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 260–288. http:/doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0173 Haustein, S. (2015). Scientific interactions and research evaluation: From bibliometrics to altmetrics [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/StefanieHaustein/haustein-isi2015-keynotereducedsize?qid=ec02f5b1-9b9e-4806-81e6-010991ddc0d5&v=&b=&from_search=7 Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120495. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών

References Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? It - Information Technology, 56(5), 207–215. http://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2014-1048 Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656–669. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23101 Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23071 Penfield, T., Matthew J. Baker, Rosa Scoble, Michael C. Wykes; Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Res Eval 2014; 23 (1): 21-32. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvt021 Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv Print, 1–17 Scientometrics from past to present, 2007). Research Trends 1. https://www.researchtrends.com/issue1-september-2007/sciomentrics-from-past-to-present/ Htoo, T. H. H., & Na, J.-C. (2015). Comparison of Altmetrics across Multiple Disciplines: Psychology, History, and Linguistics. 4th International Conference of Asian Special Libraries (ICoASL 2015). Retrieved from http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/library_research/50/ Shuai, X., Jiang, Z., Liu, X., & Bollen, J. (2013). A comparative study of academic and Wikipedia ranking. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 25–28). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2467746 23ο Συνέδριο Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών