Literatur zur Informationserschließung

Diese Datenbank enthält über 40.000 Dokumente zu Themen aus den Bereichen Formalerschließung – Inhaltserschließung – Information Retrieval.

© 2015 W. Gödert, TH Köln, Institut für Informationswissenschaft / Powered by litecat, BIS Oldenburg (Stand: 04. Juni 2021)

Suchergebnisse

• 1
  Positionspapier der DMV zur Verwendung bibliometrischer Daten.Online: 21.02.2020.
  In: Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2019, H.3-4, S.112-117.
  
  Abstract: Bibliometrische Daten werden heute zunehmend in der Evaluation von Forschungsergebnissen benutzt. Diese Anwendungen reichen von der (indirekten) Verwendung bei der Peer-Evaluation von Drittmittelanträgen über die Beurteilung von Bewerbungen in Berufungskommissionen oder Anträgen für Forschungszulagen bis hin zur systematischen Erhebung von forschungsorientierten Kennzahlen von Institutionen. Mit diesem Dokument will die DMV ihren Mitgliedern eine Diskussionsgrundlage zur Verwendung bibliometrischer Daten im Zusammenhang mit der Evaluation von Personen und Institutionen im Fachgebiet Mathematik zur Verfügung stellen, insbesondere auch im Vergleich zu anderen Fächern. Am Ende des Texts befindet sich ein Glossar, in dem die wichtigsten Begriffe kurz erläutert werden.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1515/dmvm-2019-0040.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: h-index ; Altmetrics
  
  
• 2
  Aung, H.H. ; Zheng, H. ; Erdt, M. ; Aw, A.S. ; Sin, S.-C.J. ; Theng, Y.-L.: Investigating familiarity and usage of traditional metrics and altmetrics.
  In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.8, S.872-887.
  
  Abstract: As the online dissemination of scholarly outputs gets faster and easier, altmetrics, social media based indices, have emerged alongside traditional metrics for research evaluation. In a two-phase survey, we investigate scholars' familiarity and usage of traditional metrics and altmetrics. In this paper, we present the second phase with 448 participants. We found few traditional metrics, like the Journal Impact Factor and number of citations, are familiar to and often used by scholars for research evaluation. Among altmetrics, only views/downloads, readers, and followers are known to more than half the respondents. Unseen benefits and lack of time are hindrances to using metrics for the evaluation of research outputs. Although social media are well-known, scholars prefer promoting their research by publishing in journals and attending conferences. We found social media usage, perceived ease of use and usefulness of altmetrics affect the usage of altmetrics. Findings suggest altmetrics have attracted attention in academia and could be considered complementary to traditional metrics. We acknowledge that due to the limited sample size, statistics and demographics in this study, findings cannot be said to be representative of the entire academic population worldwide. Future studies are needed that cover a wider range of academic disciplines around the world.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl.: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24162.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 3
  Didegah, F. ; Bowman, T.D. ; Holmberg, K.: On the differences between citations and altmetrics : an investigation of factors driving altmetrics versus citations for finnish articles.
  In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.6, S.832-843.
  
  Abstract: This study examines a range of factors associated with future citation and altmetric counts to a paper. The factors include journal impact factor, individual collaboration, international collaboration, institution prestige, country prestige, research funding, abstract readability, abstract length, title length, number of cited references, field size, and field type and will be modeled in association with citation counts, Mendeley readers, Twitter posts, Facebook posts, blog posts, and news posts. The results demonstrate that eight factors are important for increased citation counts, seven different factors are important for increased Mendeley readers, eight factors are important for increased Twitter posts, three factors are important for increased Facebook posts, six factors are important for increased blog posts, and five factors are important for increased news posts. Journal impact factor and international collaboration are the two factors that significantly associate with increased citation counts and with all altmetric scores. Moreover, it seems that the factors driving Mendeley readership are similar to those driving citation counts. However, the altmetric events differ from each other in terms of a small number of factors; for instance, institution prestige and country prestige associate with increased Mendeley readers and blog and news posts, but it is an insignificant factor for Twitter and Facebook posts. The findings contribute to the continued development of theoretical models and methodological developments associated with capturing, interpreting, and understanding altmetric events.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl.: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/23301643/69/6.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 4
  Torres-Salinas, D. ; Gorraiz, J. ; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer?.
  In: Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.691-707.
  
  Abstract: Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
  
  Inhalt: Teil eines Special Issue: Scholarly books and their evaluation context in the social sciences and humanities. Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2018-0152.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 5
  Sugimoto, C.R. ; Work, S. ; Larivière, V. ; Haustein, S.: Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics : A review of the literature.
  In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2037-2062.
  (AIS review)
  
  Abstract: Social media has become integrated into the fabric of the scholarly communication system in fundamental ways, principally through scholarly use of social media platforms and the promotion of new indicators on the basis of interactions with these platforms. Research and scholarship in this area has accelerated since the coining and subsequent advocacy for altmetrics-that is, research indicators based on social media activity. This review provides an extensive account of the state-of-the art in both scholarly use of social media and altmetrics. The review consists of 2 main parts: the first examines the use of social media in academia, reviewing the various functions these platforms have in the scholarly communication process and the factors that affect this use. The second part reviews empirical studies of altmetrics, discussing the various interpretations of altmetrics, data collection and methodological limitations, and differences according to platform. The review ends with a critical discussion of the implications of this transformation in the scholarly communication system.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23833/full.
  
  Themenfeld: Internet ; Informetrie ; Literaturübersicht
  Wissenschaftsfach: Kommunikationswissenschaften
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 6
  Costas, R. ; Perianes-Rodríguez, A. ; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership.
  In: Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575.
  
  Abstract: Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0023.
  
  Anmerkung: Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
  
  Themenfeld: Elektronisches Publizieren ; Informetrie
  Objekt: Mendeley ; Altmetrics
  
  
• 7
  Bornmann, L.: What do altmetrics counts mean? : a plea for content analyses.
  In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1016-1017.
  (Letter to the editor)
  
  Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23633/abstract.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 8
  Bornmann, L. ; Haunschild, R.: Overlay maps based on Mendeley data : the use of altmetrics for readership networks.
  In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3064-3072.
  
  Abstract: Visualization of scientific results using networks has become popular in scientometric research. We provide base maps for Mendeley reader count data using the publication year 2012 from the Web of Science data. Example networks are shown and explained. The reader can use our base maps to visualize other results with the VOSViewer. The proposed overlay maps are able to show the impact of publications in terms of readership data. The advantage of using our base maps is that it is not necessary for the user to produce a network based on all data (e.g., from 1 year), but can collect the Mendeley data for a single institution (or journals, topics) and can match them with our already produced information. Generation of such large-scale networks is still a demanding task despite the available computer power and digital data availability. Therefore, it is very useful to have base maps and create the network with the overlay technique.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23530/full.
  
  Themenfeld: Visualisierung
  Objekt: Mendeley ; Altmetrics
  
  
• 9
  Thelwall, M.: Web indicators for research evaluation : a practical guide.
  San Rafael, CA : Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2016. 170 S.
  ISBN 978-1-62705917-6
  (Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services; 52)
  
  Abstract: In recent years there has been an increasing demand for research evaluation within universities and other research-based organisations. In parallel, there has been an increasing recognition that traditional citation-based indicators are not able to reflect the societal impacts of research and are slow to appear. This has led to the creation of new indicators for different types of research impact as well as timelier indicators, mainly derived from the Web. These indicators have been called altmetrics, webometrics or just web metrics. This book describes and evaluates a range of web indicators for aspects of societal or scholarly impact, discusses the theory and practice of using and evaluating web indicators for research assessment and outlines practical strategies for obtaining many web indicators. In addition to describing impact indicators for traditional scholarly outputs, such as journal articles and monographs, it also covers indicators for videos, datasets, software and other non-standard scholarly outputs. The book describes strategies to analyse web indicators for individual publications as well as to compare the impacts of groups of publications. The practical part of the book includes descriptions of how to use the free software Webometric Analyst to gather and analyse web data. This book is written for information science undergraduate and Master?s students that are learning about alternative indicators or scientometrics as well as Ph.D. students and other researchers and practitioners using indicators to help assess research impact or to study scholarly communication.
  
  Anmerkung: Rez. in: JASIST 69(2018) no.3, S.498-499 (Isidro F. Aguillo).
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  LCSH: Electronic books
  RSWK: Altmetrische Daten
  DDC: 006.312
  LCC: QA76.9.D343
  RVK: AK 28100
  
• 10
  Mohammadi, E. ; Thelwall, M. ; Haustein, S. ; Larivière, V.: Who reads research articles? : an altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories.
  In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.9, S.1832-1846.
  
  Abstract: Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23286/abstract.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 11
  Schmitz, J. ; Arning, U. ; Peters, I.: handbuch.io : Handbuch CoScience / Messung von wissenschaftlichem Impact.
  In: http://handbuch.io/w/Handbuch_CoScience/Messung_von_wissenschaftlichem_Impact.
  
  Abstract: Die Bewertung der Forschungs- und Publikationsleistung spielt in unterschiedlichen Kontexten im Wissenschaftssystem eine große Rolle, insbesondere weil Drittmittel knapp und mit Renommee verbundene Stellen wie Professuren rar sind. Neben der inhaltlichen und qualitativen Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Leistung durch Peer Review, wird auch versucht, Publikationsleistungen von Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern, Instituten oder Arbeitsgruppen zu quantifizieren. Diese "Vermessung" von Publikationen wird auch als Bibliometrie (engl. bibliometrics) oder Szientometrie (engl. scientometrics) bezeichnet. Entscheidend sind hierbei in erster Linie drei Kennzahlen: - Produktivität: Anzahl der Publikationen - Wirkung/Impact: Anzahl der Zitationen - Kooperationen: Anzahl der Artikel, die man gemeinsam mit anderen Autoren oder Institutionen publiziert. Der Zitierung kommt in der Wissenschaft eine besondere Bedeutung zu.
  
  Inhalt: DOI: 10.2314/coscv2.10
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: h-Index ; Altmetrics
  
  
• 12
  Costas, R. ; Zahedi, Z. ; Wouters, P.: Do "altmetrics" correlate with citations? : extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective.
  In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2003-2019.
  
  Abstract: An extensive analysis of the presence of different altmetric indicators provided by Altmetric.com across scientific fields is presented, particularly focusing on their relationship with citations. Our results confirm that the presence and density of social media altmetric counts are still very low and not very frequent among scientific publications, with 15%-24% of the publications presenting some altmetric activity and concentrated on the most recent publications, although their presence is increasing over time. Publications from the social sciences, humanities, and the medical and life sciences show the highest presence of altmetrics, indicating their potential value and interest for these fields. The analysis of the relationships between altmetrics and citations confirms previous claims of positive correlations but is relatively weak, thus supporting the idea that altmetrics do not reflect the same kind of impact as citations. Also, altmetric counts do not always present a better filtering of highly-cited publications than journal citation scores. Altmetric scores (particularly mentions in blogs) are able to identify highly-cited publications with higher levels of precision than journal citation scores (JCS), but they have a lower level of recall. The value of altmetrics as a complementary tool of citation analysis is highlighted, although more research is suggested to disentangle the potential meaning and value of altmetric indicators for research evaluation.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23309/abstract.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 13
  Haustein, S.: Scientific interactions and research evaluation : from bibliometrics to Altmetrics.
  In: Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff. Glückstadt : vwh-Verlag, 2015. S.36-42.
  (Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft; Bd.66)
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 14
  Mohammadi , E. ; Thelwall, M.: Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities : research evaluation and knowledge flows.
  In: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.8, S.1627-1638.
  
  Abstract: Although there is evidence that counting the readers of an article in the social reference site, Mendeley, may help to capture its research impact, the extent to which this is true for different scientific fields is unknown. In this study, we compare Mendeley readership counts with citations for different social sciences and humanities disciplines. The overall correlation between Mendeley readership counts and citations for the social sciences was higher than for the humanities. Low and medium correlations between Mendeley bookmarks and citation counts in all the investigated disciplines suggest that these measures reflect different aspects of research impact. Mendeley data were also used to discover patterns of information flow between scientific fields. Comparing information flows based on Mendeley bookmarking data and cross-disciplinary citation analysis for the disciplines revealed substantial similarities and some differences. Thus, the evidence from this study suggests that Mendeley readership data could be used to help capture knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines, especially for people that read but do not author articles, as well as giving impact evidence at an earlier stage than is possible with citation counts.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 15
  Hirschmann, B.: Altmetrics - neue Formen der Impact-Messung auf dem Vormarsch?.
  In: http://blogs.ethz.ch/innovethbib/2013/10/17/altmetrics-neue-formen-der-impact-messung-auf-dem-vormarsch/.
  
  Abstract: Der oft zitierte Slogan "publish or perish" ist vielen ein Begriff. Er verweist darauf, dass Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler zunehmend danach bewertet werden, wo und wie viel sie publizieren. Auch Berufungskommissionen legen Wert auf eine umfangreiche Publikationsliste. Artikel in den "Top-Journals" eines Fachgebiets sind also die Währung, mit der in der wissenschaftlichen Community gehandelt wird. Doch woran lässt sich festmachen, welchen Einfluss eine Zeitschrift in der Fach-Community hat? In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich hierfür der Journal Impact Factor (JIF) als klassischer Vergleichswert etabliert. Der JIF berechnet den "Einfluss" einer Fachzeitschrift anhand der durchschnittlichen Anzahl von Zitaten, die ein darin veröffentlichter Artikel erreicht.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl. auch: http://www.altmetric.com/researchers.php.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics
  
  
• 16
  Herb, U. ; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web.
  In: Wissenschaftsmanagement. 2013, Juli / August, S.21-25.
  
  Abstract: Wissenschaftliche Karrieren und Publikationen benötigen Reputation und möglichst viel Beachtung. Literatur, die diese Aufmerksamkeit findet, wird - so die gängige Annahme - häufig zitiert. Ausgehend von dieser Überlegung wurden Verfahren der Zitationsmessung entwickelt, die Auskunft über die Relevanz oder (wie im- und explizit oft auch postuliert wird) gar die Qualität einer Publikation oder eines Wissenschaftlers geben sollen.
  
  Inhalt: Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  
  Anmerkung: Volltext unter: ..\wim_2013_04_ulrich_herb_daniel_beucke_die_zukunft_der_impact_messung.pdf.
  
  Themenfeld: Informetrie
  Objekt: Altmetrics