6th conference on open access scholarly publishing september 17th – 19th, 2014 kevin dolby...
TRANSCRIPT
6th Conference on Open Access Scholarly PublishingSeptember 17th – 19th, 2014
Kevin DolbyWellcome Trust
OA Publishing Community Standards:Article Level Metrics
A Funder’s perspective
OutlineO The Wellcome Trust -
How we use Article Level Metrics Why they are important to us
Current sources of data (and the problems with them) Initiatives and collaborations changing the landscape
Set up in 1936 under the will of Sir Henry Wellcome.
Our vision is to achieve extraordinary improvements in human and animal health.
Our mission is to support the brightest minds in biomedical research and the medical humanities.
We spend approximately £650 million on research per year.
The Wellcome Trust
Current grant portfolio
Monitoring progress: WT’s key indicatorsOutcomes Key indicators of progress
Discoveries
Applications
Engagement
Research leaders
Research environment
Influence
1. significant advances in the generation of new knowledge2. contribute to discoveries with tangible impacts on health
3. contribute to the development of enabling technologies, products and devices
4. uptake of research into policy and practice5. enhanced level of informed debate in biomedicine6. significant engagement of key audiences & increased reach
7. develop a cadre of research leaders8. evidence of significant career progression among those we
support9. key contributions to the creation, development and maintenance
of major research resources10. contributions to the growth of centres of excellence
11. significant impact on science funding & policy developments12. significant impact on global research priorities and processes
o Cited 2904 times; o Normalised
Citation Impact = 327;
o Acta Crystal D JIF = 7.232
Article level metrics vs. Journal level metrics
Alternative metrics – beyond citations
MEP
Centre for Bioethics
MEP
Professor of EBM
Journal editor
Health journalist
NGO
Health, Population & Nutrition @ The World
Bank
Engagement and Influence
Monitoring progress: WT’s key indicatorsOutcomes Key indicators of progress
Discoveries
Applications
Engagement
Research leaders
Research environment
Influence
1. significant advances in the generation of new knowledge2. contribute to discoveries with tangible impacts on health
3. contribute to the development of enabling technologies, products and devices
4. uptake of research into policy and practice5. enhanced level of informed debate in biomedicine6. significant engagement of key audiences & increased reach
7. develop a cadre of research leaders8. evidence of significant career progression among those we
support9. key contributions to the creation, development and maintenance
of major research resources10. contributions to the growth of centres of excellence
11. significant impact on science funding & policy developments12. significant impact on global research priorities and processes
Sources of data
We need article-level data which is consistent in its source and meaning in order to enable sensible comparisons between outputs of different schemes
Differences between publisher-provided data mean that, primarily, we use third-party data providers:
Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Altmetric
Citation data
Differences in citation data
Source Number of citations
Scopus 76Web of Science 64Google Scholar 103CrossRef 56PMC 44EuropePMC 66
For a sample of 358 Wellcome-associated papers, on average:o WoS had 10 cites per papero Scopus 12 cites per papero Google Scholar 18 cites per paper
Differences in citation data
NISO Altmetrics project
Aim to “undertake a two-phase initiative to explore, identify, and advance standards and/or best practices related to a new suite of potential metrics in the community”
First meeting in October 2013 The first phase identified areas for potential
standardization; a consultation period has sought to prioritise these areas; phase two will advance and develop these standards.
Final report due in November 2015
Shared sources – the ALM app
CrossRef DOI Event Tracker (DET) Pilot
Pilot group of publishers and potential users of this data Aim is to test the feasibility of developing and running an
industry -scale infrastructure to track, store and propagate DOI- related “events”.
These “events” may be come from a wide range of sources including:
scholarly publications professional or grey literature scholarly tools mainstream media social media.
CrossRef DOI Event Tracker (DET) Pilot
Looking to establish that it’s possible (and important) to separate out the infrastructure needed for tracking common information about the events from the value–added services (e.g. analysis and visualization)
So there will be the basic data available for all, with potential “premium” services on top.
More to follow…
Key points If ALM data is to be useful we have to understand where
it comes from and what it means Consistency would be good, transparency even more
important Availability is vital
thank you
6th Conference on Open Access Scholarly PublishingSeptember 17th – 19th, 2014