论文标题
高度分数是否反映了文章质量?英国研究卓越框架的证据2021
Do altmetric scores reflect article quality? Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021
论文作者
论文摘要
Altmetrics是基于Web的定量影响或针对已提议补充引用数量的学术文章的注意指标。本文报告了对Altmetric.com成熟的Altmetrics和Mendeley与期刊文章质量相关的首次评估。它利用了2021年英国研究卓越研究框架的专家提及的同行评审分数,以2014-17/18的所有领域的67,030多个期刊文章分为34个评估单位(UOAAS)。结果表明,Altmetrics比以前想象的更好的研究质量指标,尽管不如原始和现场标准化的Scopus引文计数好。出乎意料的是,域归一化引文计数可以降低其作为单个字段中文章的质量指标的强度。对于大多数UOA来说,Mendeley读者的数量是最好的,在许多领域,推文计数也相对较强,Facebook,博客和新闻引用至少在英国某些UOA中是中等强大的指标。通常,Altmetrics是健康和物理科学研究质量的最强指标,在艺术和人文中最弱。虽然杂种虽然杂种,但几乎与Mendeley Reader算作质量指标一样好,并且反映了更多的非智利影响。
Altmetrics are web-based quantitative impact or attention indicators for academic articles that have been proposed to supplement citation counts. This article reports the first assessment of the extent to which mature altmetrics from Altmetric.com and Mendeley associate with journal article quality. It exploits expert norm-referenced peer review scores from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021 for 67,030+ journal articles in all fields 2014-17/18, split into 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs). The results show that altmetrics are better indicators of research quality than previously thought, although not as good as raw and field normalised Scopus citation counts. Surprisingly, field normalising citation counts can reduce their strength as a quality indicator for articles in a single field. For most UoAs, Mendeley reader counts are the best, tweet counts are also a relatively strong indicator in many fields, and Facebook, blogs and news citations are moderately strong indicators in some UoAs, at least in the UK. In general, altmetrics are the strongest indicators of research quality in the health and physical sciences and weakest in the arts and humanities. The Altmetric Attention Score, although hybrid, is almost as good as Mendeley reader counts as a quality indicator and reflects more non-scholarly impacts.