Field-weighting readership: How does it compare to field-weighting citations?

Sarah Huggett; Chris James; Eleonora Palmaro

doi:10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8

Field-weighting readership: How does it compare to field-weighting citations?

Sarah Huggett, Chris James, Eleonora Palmaro

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › peer-review

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

Recent advances in computational power and the advancement of the internet mean that we now have access to a wider array of data than ever before. If used appropriately, and in conjunction with peer evaluation and careful interpretation, metrics can inform and enhance research assessment through the benefits of being impartial, comparable, and scalable. There have been several calls for a “basket of metrics” to be incorporated into research evaluation. However, research is a multi-faceted and complex endeavor. Its outputs and outcomes vary, in particular by field, so measuring research impact can be challenging. In this paper, we reflect on the concept of field-weighting and discuss field-weighting methodologies. We study applications of field-weighting for Mendeley reads and present comparative analyses of field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) and field-weighted readership impact (FWRI). We see that there is a strong correlation between the number of papers cited and read per country. Overall, per subject area for the most prolific countries, FWCI and FWRI values tend to be close. Variations per country tend to hold true per field. FWRI appears to be a robust metric that can offer a useful complement to FWCI, in that it provides insights on a different part of the scholarly communications cycle.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management - International Altmetrics Workshop, AROSIM 2018, Revised Selected Papers
Editors	Mojisola Erdt, Yin-Leng Theng, Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar, Edie Rasmussen
Publisher	Springer Verlag
Pages	96-104
Number of pages	9
ISBN (Print)	9789811310522
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8
State	Published - 2018
Externally published	Yes
Event	International Workshop on Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management, AROSIM 2018 - Singapore, Singapore Duration: Jan 26 2018 → Jan 26 2018

Publication series

Name	Communications in Computer and Information Science
Volume	856
ISSN (Print)	1865-0929

Conference

Conference	International Workshop on Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management, AROSIM 2018
Country/Territory	Singapore
City	Singapore
Period	01/26/18 → 01/26/18

Keywords

Altmetrics
Bibliometrics
Field-weighting
Indicators
Metrics
Research assessment
Research evaluation
Research performance

Access to Document

10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8

Cite this

Huggett, S., James, C., & Palmaro, E. (2018). Field-weighting readership: How does it compare to field-weighting citations? In M. Erdt, Y.-L. Theng, A. Sesagiri Raamkumar, & E. Rasmussen (Eds.), Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management - International Altmetrics Workshop, AROSIM 2018, Revised Selected Papers (pp. 96-104). (Communications in Computer and Information Science; Vol. 856). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8

Huggett, Sarah ; James, Chris ; Palmaro, Eleonora. / Field-weighting readership : How does it compare to field-weighting citations?. Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management - International Altmetrics Workshop, AROSIM 2018, Revised Selected Papers. editor / Mojisola Erdt ; Yin-Leng Theng ; Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar ; Edie Rasmussen. Springer Verlag, 2018. pp. 96-104 (Communications in Computer and Information Science).

@inproceedings{9c4914ccbfe04c82886be548c5eeabd1,

title = "Field-weighting readership: How does it compare to field-weighting citations?",

abstract = "Recent advances in computational power and the advancement of the internet mean that we now have access to a wider array of data than ever before. If used appropriately, and in conjunction with peer evaluation and careful interpretation, metrics can inform and enhance research assessment through the benefits of being impartial, comparable, and scalable. There have been several calls for a “basket of metrics” to be incorporated into research evaluation. However, research is a multi-faceted and complex endeavor. Its outputs and outcomes vary, in particular by field, so measuring research impact can be challenging. In this paper, we reflect on the concept of field-weighting and discuss field-weighting methodologies. We study applications of field-weighting for Mendeley reads and present comparative analyses of field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) and field-weighted readership impact (FWRI). We see that there is a strong correlation between the number of papers cited and read per country. Overall, per subject area for the most prolific countries, FWCI and FWRI values tend to be close. Variations per country tend to hold true per field. FWRI appears to be a robust metric that can offer a useful complement to FWCI, in that it provides insights on a different part of the scholarly communications cycle.",

keywords = "Altmetrics, Bibliometrics, Field-weighting, Indicators, Metrics, Research assessment, Research evaluation, Research performance",

author = "Sarah Huggett and Chris James and Eleonora Palmaro",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018.; International Workshop on Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management, AROSIM 2018 ; Conference date: 26-01-2018 Through 26-01-2018",

year = "2018",

doi = "10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8",

language = "Ingl{\'e}s",

isbn = "9789811310522",

series = "Communications in Computer and Information Science",

publisher = "Springer Verlag",

pages = "96--104",

editor = "Mojisola Erdt and Yin-Leng Theng and {Sesagiri Raamkumar}, Aravind and Edie Rasmussen",

booktitle = "Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management - International Altmetrics Workshop, AROSIM 2018, Revised Selected Papers",

}

Huggett, S, James, C & Palmaro, E 2018, Field-weighting readership: How does it compare to field-weighting citations? in M Erdt, Y-L Theng, A Sesagiri Raamkumar & E Rasmussen (eds), Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management - International Altmetrics Workshop, AROSIM 2018, Revised Selected Papers. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 856, Springer Verlag, pp. 96-104, International Workshop on Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management, AROSIM 2018, Singapore, Singapore, 01/26/18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8

Field-weighting readership: How does it compare to field-weighting citations? / Huggett, Sarah; James, Chris; Palmaro, Eleonora.
Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management - International Altmetrics Workshop, AROSIM 2018, Revised Selected Papers. ed. / Mojisola Erdt; Yin-Leng Theng; Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar; Edie Rasmussen. Springer Verlag, 2018. p. 96-104 (Communications in Computer and Information Science; Vol. 856).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution › peer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - Field-weighting readership

T2 - International Workshop on Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management, AROSIM 2018

AU - Huggett, Sarah

AU - James, Chris

AU - Palmaro, Eleonora

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Recent advances in computational power and the advancement of the internet mean that we now have access to a wider array of data than ever before. If used appropriately, and in conjunction with peer evaluation and careful interpretation, metrics can inform and enhance research assessment through the benefits of being impartial, comparable, and scalable. There have been several calls for a “basket of metrics” to be incorporated into research evaluation. However, research is a multi-faceted and complex endeavor. Its outputs and outcomes vary, in particular by field, so measuring research impact can be challenging. In this paper, we reflect on the concept of field-weighting and discuss field-weighting methodologies. We study applications of field-weighting for Mendeley reads and present comparative analyses of field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) and field-weighted readership impact (FWRI). We see that there is a strong correlation between the number of papers cited and read per country. Overall, per subject area for the most prolific countries, FWCI and FWRI values tend to be close. Variations per country tend to hold true per field. FWRI appears to be a robust metric that can offer a useful complement to FWCI, in that it provides insights on a different part of the scholarly communications cycle.

AB - Recent advances in computational power and the advancement of the internet mean that we now have access to a wider array of data than ever before. If used appropriately, and in conjunction with peer evaluation and careful interpretation, metrics can inform and enhance research assessment through the benefits of being impartial, comparable, and scalable. There have been several calls for a “basket of metrics” to be incorporated into research evaluation. However, research is a multi-faceted and complex endeavor. Its outputs and outcomes vary, in particular by field, so measuring research impact can be challenging. In this paper, we reflect on the concept of field-weighting and discuss field-weighting methodologies. We study applications of field-weighting for Mendeley reads and present comparative analyses of field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) and field-weighted readership impact (FWRI). We see that there is a strong correlation between the number of papers cited and read per country. Overall, per subject area for the most prolific countries, FWCI and FWRI values tend to be close. Variations per country tend to hold true per field. FWRI appears to be a robust metric that can offer a useful complement to FWCI, in that it provides insights on a different part of the scholarly communications cycle.

KW - Altmetrics

KW - Bibliometrics

KW - Field-weighting

KW - Indicators

KW - Metrics

KW - Research assessment

KW - Research evaluation

KW - Research performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048768791&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8

DO - 10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8

M3 - Contribución a la conferencia

AN - SCOPUS:85048768791

SN - 9789811310522

T3 - Communications in Computer and Information Science

SP - 96

EP - 104

BT - Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management - International Altmetrics Workshop, AROSIM 2018, Revised Selected Papers

A2 - Erdt, Mojisola

A2 - Theng, Yin-Leng

A2 - Sesagiri Raamkumar, Aravind

A2 - Rasmussen, Edie

PB - Springer Verlag

Y2 - 26 January 2018 through 26 January 2018

ER -

Huggett S, James C, Palmaro E. Field-weighting readership: How does it compare to field-weighting citations? In Erdt M, Theng YL, Sesagiri Raamkumar A, Rasmussen E, editors, Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurement and Scholarly Information Management - International Altmetrics Workshop, AROSIM 2018, Revised Selected Papers. Springer Verlag. 2018. p. 96-104. (Communications in Computer and Information Science). doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8

Field-weighting readership: How does it compare to field-weighting citations?

Abstract

Publication series

Conference

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this