Can Social Reference Management Systems Predict a Ranking of Scholarly Venues?  Hamed Alhoori and Richard Furuta

New scholarly venues (e.g., conferences and journals) are emerging as research fields expand. Ranking these new venues is imperative to assist researchers, librarians, and research institutions. However, rankings based on traditional citation-based metrics have limitations and are no longer the only or the best choice to determine the impact of scholarly venues. Here, we propose a venue-ranking approach based on scholarly references from academic social media sites, and we compare a number of citation-based rankings with socialbased rankings. Our preliminary results show a statistically significant correlation between the two approaches in a number of general rankings, research areas, and subdisciplines. Furthermore, we found that social-based rankings favor open-access venues over venues that require a subscription.

Google Scholar en Impact factoren. SCImago

social reference management systems have the potential to provide an early intellectual indicator of the influence of scholarly venues, while reducing the limitations of citation-based metrics.

 
Ranking is belangrijk en wordt overal toegepast.

Er zijn heel wat verschillende op scholarly terrein, ook EigenFactor en SIR.

Behalve citations heb je ook views, downloads, comments etc, maar hoe tel je die?
Was t een bewuste download/view, of toevallig?
Zotero en Mendeley hebben ook statistieken.
Ze zijn uitgegaan van CiteULikr.

Social based metrics:
1 Readership
2 Article count
3 Active researchers rating

Die social based metrics vergeleken ze met de standaard biometric/citation indexen.
In Humanities and art was er een lage correlation, in andere gebieden was deze wel hoog.

Hoge populariteit was vaak ook hoge citatie index.

Social based favored open access over subscription based

Er is geen ‘Single indicator’ die multidimensionale constructies kan meten.
(No indeed …No simple sollution to complex problems ;-))