Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 2170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=2170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 2170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2170)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Recent high-profile statements, criticisms, and boycotts organized against certain quantitative indicators (e.g., the DORA declaration) have brought misuses of performance metrics to the center of attention. A key concern captured in these movements is that the metrics appear to carry authority even where established agents of quality control have explicitly outlined limits to their validity and reliability as measurement tools. This raises a number of challenging questions for those readers of this journal who are implicated in questions of indicator "production" and, by extension, "effects." In this opinion piece we wish to critically engage the question of how producers of indicators can come to terms with their role as (partly) responsible parties in the current age of evaluative bibliometrics. We do so through the illuminating case of the professional scientometrics community.

0.0061617517 = product of:
  0.049294014 = sum of:
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=215,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 215, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=215)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Social media metrics have a genuine networked nature, reflecting the networking characteristics of the social media platform from where they are derived. This networked nature has been relatively less explored in the literature on altmetrics, although new network-level approaches are starting to appear. A general conceptualization of the role of social media networks in science communication, and particularly of social media as a specific type of interface between science and society, is still missing. The aim of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for appraising interactions between science and society in multiple directions, in what we call heterogeneous couplings. Heterogeneous couplings are conceptualized as the co-occurrence of science and non-science objects, actors, and interactions in online media environments. This conceptualization provides a common framework to study the interactions between science and non-science actors as captured via online and social media platforms. The conceptualization of heterogeneous couplings opens wider opportunities for the development of network applications and analyses of the interactions between societal and scholarly entities in social media environments, paving the way toward more advanced forms of altmetrics, social (media) studies of science, and the conceptualization and operationalization of more advanced science-society studies.