Do altmetrics work for assessing research quality?

Alternative metrics (aka altmetrics) are gaining increasing interest in the scientometrics community as they can capture both the volume and quality of attention that a research work receives online. Nevertheless, there is limited knowledge about their effectiveness as a mean for measuring the impact of research if compared to traditional citation-based indicators. This work aims at rigorously investigating if any correlation exists among indicators, either traditional (i.e. citation count and h-index) or alternative (i.e. altmetrics) and which of them may be effective for evaluating scholars. The study is based on the analysis of real data coming from the National Scientific Qualification procedure held in Italy by committees of peers on behalf of the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research.

READ FULL TEXT

page 11

page 12

page 14

page 15

page 16

research
11/08/2018

h-index and its alternative: A Review

In recent years, several Scientometrics and Bibliometrics indicators wer...
research
10/01/2017

Filling the citation gap: Measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX

More than five years after their emergence, altmetrics are still seen as...
research
12/17/2021

The Values and Limits of Altmetrics

Altmetrics are tools for measuring the impact of research beyond scienti...
research
04/13/2020

Using altmetrics for detecting impactful research in quasi-zero-day time-windows: the case of COVID-19

On December 31st 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) China Country...
research
08/29/2018

Revisiting Relative Indicators and Provisional Truths

Following discussions in 2010 and 2011, scientometric evaluators have in...
research
04/24/2023

Impact-Oriented Contextual Scholar Profiling using Self-Citation Graphs

Quantitatively profiling a scholar's scientific impact is important to m...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset