Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web

By Jason Priem, B. Hemminger. First Monday, 2010

387 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The growing flood of scholarly literature is exposing the weaknesses of current, citation-based methods of evaluating and filtering articles. A novel and promising approach is to examine the use and citation of articles in a new forum: Web 2.0 services like social bookmarking and microblogging. Metrics based on this data could build a “Scientometics 2.0,” supporting richer and more timely pictures of articles' impact. This paper develops the most comprehensive list of these services to date, assessing the potential value and availability of data from each. We also suggest the next steps toward building and validating metrics drawn from the social Web.

Subfields: Information Systems, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f214ecb5a85b1f909bfc32613c12a4aea55dd68e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications (2014, background): “…in assessing scientific impact has entered the scientific debate, and these new metrics are expected not only to overcome some of the limitations of the previous approaches but also to provide new insights in research evaluation (Priem & Hemminger 2010; Galligan & Dyas-Correia 2013; Bornmann 2013).”
The State of NLP Literature: A Diachronic Analysis of the ACL Anthology (2019, background): “…Siddharthan, and Tidhar 2006; Pham and Hoffmann 2003; Nanba, Kando, and Okumura 2011; Mohammad et al. 2009; Zhu et al. 2015), and on measuring scholarly impact (Ravenscroft et al. 2017; Priem and Hemminger 2010; Bulaitis 2017; Bos and Nitza 2019; Ioannidis et al. 2019; Yogatama et al. 2011).”
How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads, Twitter Mentions, and Citations (2012, positive): “These results are highly relevant to recent investigations of scholarly impact based on social media data [7,8] as well as to more traditional efforts to enhance the assessment of scholarly impact from usage data [9–12].”
Examining Citations of Natural Language Processing Literature (2020, background): “…2009; Ordu˜na-Malea et al., 2014; Khabsa and Giles, 2014; Mingers and Leydesdorff, 2015; Mart´ın-Mart´ın et al., 2018) and on scholarly impact in particular (Priem and Hemminger, 2010; Yogatama et al., 2011; Bulaitis, 2017; Ravenscroft et al., 2017; Bos and Nitza, 2019; Ioannidis et al., 2019).”
Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics (2014, background): “Many social web tools offer real-time access to structured altmetric data via application programming interfaces (APIs) (Priem & Hemminger, 2010), with which the impact of a paper can be tracked at any time after publication.”
NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRC (neutral): “…et al., 2006; Pham and Hoffmann, 2003; Nanba et al., 2011; Mohammad et al., 2009; Zhu et al., 2015), and on measuring scholarly impact (Ravenscroft et al., 2017; Priem and Hemminger, 2010; Bulaitis, 2017; Bos and Nitza, 2019; Ioannidis et al., 2019; Yogatama et al., 2011; Mishra et al., 2018).”
Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services (2013, background): “Several sources have been proposed as alternatives for measuring the impact of scholarly publications, such as mentions and citations in blogs, Wikipedia, Twitter or Facebook or reader counts on social reference managers and bookmarking platforms [1], [19–22].”