Could the altmetrics wave bring a flood of confusion for anatomists?

IF 5.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jessica N. Byram, Michelle D. Lazarus, Adam B. Wilson, Kirsten M. Brown
{"title":"Could the altmetrics wave bring a flood of confusion for anatomists?","authors":"Jessica N. Byram,&nbsp;Michelle D. Lazarus,&nbsp;Adam B. Wilson,&nbsp;Kirsten M. Brown","doi":"10.1002/ase.2267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Altmetrics are non-traditional metrics that can capture downloads, social media shares, and other modern measures of research impact and reach. Despite most of the altmetrics literature focusing on evaluating the relationship between research outputs and academic impact/influence, the perceived and actual value of altmetrics among academicians remains nebulous and inconsistent. This work proposes that ambiguities surrounding the value and use of altmetrics may be explained by a multiplicity of altmetrics definitions communicated by journal publishers. A root cause analysis was initiated to compare altmetrics definitions between anatomy and medical education journal publishers' websites and to determine the comparability of the measurement and platform sources used for computing altmetrics values. A scoping content analysis of data from across eight publishers' websites revealed wide variability in definitions and heterogeneity among altmetrics measurement sources. The incongruencies among publishers' altmetrics definitions and their value demonstrate that publishers may be one of the root cause of ambiguity perpetuating confusion around the value and use of altmetrics. This review highlights the need to more deeply explore the root causes of altmetrics ambiguities within academia and makes a compelling argument for establishing a ubiquitous altmetrics definition that is concise, clear, and specific.</p>","PeriodicalId":124,"journal":{"name":"Anatomical Sciences Education","volume":"16 4","pages":"600-609"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ase.2267","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomical Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ase.2267","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Altmetrics are non-traditional metrics that can capture downloads, social media shares, and other modern measures of research impact and reach. Despite most of the altmetrics literature focusing on evaluating the relationship between research outputs and academic impact/influence, the perceived and actual value of altmetrics among academicians remains nebulous and inconsistent. This work proposes that ambiguities surrounding the value and use of altmetrics may be explained by a multiplicity of altmetrics definitions communicated by journal publishers. A root cause analysis was initiated to compare altmetrics definitions between anatomy and medical education journal publishers' websites and to determine the comparability of the measurement and platform sources used for computing altmetrics values. A scoping content analysis of data from across eight publishers' websites revealed wide variability in definitions and heterogeneity among altmetrics measurement sources. The incongruencies among publishers' altmetrics definitions and their value demonstrate that publishers may be one of the root cause of ambiguity perpetuating confusion around the value and use of altmetrics. This review highlights the need to more deeply explore the root causes of altmetrics ambiguities within academia and makes a compelling argument for establishing a ubiquitous altmetrics definition that is concise, clear, and specific.

另类计量学浪潮会给解剖学家带来大量困惑吗?
另类指标是一种非传统指标,可以捕捉下载量、社交媒体分享和其他现代研究影响和覆盖范围的衡量标准。尽管大多数替代计量学文献侧重于评估研究产出与学术影响/影响力之间的关系,但学术界对替代计量学的感知和实际价值仍然模糊和不一致。这项工作提出,围绕替代计量的价值和使用的模糊性可以通过期刊出版商传达的多种替代计量定义来解释。开展了根本原因分析,以比较解剖学和医学教育期刊出版商网站上的替代计量定义,并确定用于计算替代计量值的测量和平台来源的可比性。对来自八家出版商网站的数据进行的范围内容分析显示,不同度量来源的定义和异质性存在很大差异。出版商对替代度量标准的定义与其价值之间的不一致表明,出版商可能是导致替代度量标准的价值和使用持续混乱的根本原因之一。这篇综述强调需要更深入地探索学术界中替代度量歧义的根本原因,并为建立一个简洁、清晰和具体的通用替代度量定义提出了令人信服的论据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anatomical Sciences Education
Anatomical Sciences Education Anatomy/education-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
39.70%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Anatomical Sciences Education, affiliated with the American Association for Anatomy, serves as an international platform for sharing ideas, innovations, and research related to education in anatomical sciences. Covering gross anatomy, embryology, histology, and neurosciences, the journal addresses education at various levels, including undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, allied health, medical (both allopathic and osteopathic), and dental. It fosters collaboration and discussion in the field of anatomical sciences education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信