IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v26y2017i3p230-241..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring field-normalized impact of papers on specific societal groups: An altmetrics study based on Mendeley Data

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Bornmann
  • Robin Haunschild

Abstract

Bibliometrics is successful in measuring impact because the target is clearly defined: the publishing scientist who is still active and working. Thus, citations are a target-oriented metric which measures impact on science. In contrast, societal impact measurements based on altmetrics are as a rule intended to measure impact in a broad sense on all areas of society (e.g. science, culture, politics, and economics). This tendency is especially reflected in the efforts to design composite indicators (e.g. the Altmetric Attention Score). We deem appropriate that not only the impact measurement using citations is target-oriented (citations measure the impact of papers on scientists) but also the measurement of impact using altmetrics. Impact measurements only make sense, if the target group—the recipient of academic papers—is clearly defined. Thus, we extend in this study the field-normalized reader impact indicator proposed by us in an earlier study, which is based on Mendeley data (the mean normalized reader score, MNRS), to a target-oriented field-normalized impact indicator (e.g. MNRSED measures reader impact on the sector of educational donation, i.e. teaching). This indicator can show—as demonstrated in empirical examples—the ability of journals, countries, and academic institutions to publish papers which are below or above the average impact of papers on a specific sector in society (e.g. the educational or teaching sector). Thus, the method allows to measure the impact of scientific papers on certain groups—controlling for the field in which the papers have been published and their publication year.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2017. "Measuring field-normalized impact of papers on specific societal groups: An altmetrics study based on Mendeley Data," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 230-241.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:26:y:2017:i:3:p:230-241.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvx005
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robin Haunschild & Lutz Bornmann, 2018. "Field- and time-normalization of data with many zeros: an empirical analysis using citation and Twitter data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 997-1012, August.
    2. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Robin Haunschild & Felix Moya-Anegon & Mirko Almeida Madeira Clemente & Moritz Stefaner, 2021. "Mapping the impact of papers on various status groups in excellencemapping.net: a new release of the excellence mapping tool based on citation and reader scores," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9305-9331, November.
    4. Alberto Cerezo-Narváez & Andrés Pastor-Fernández & Manuel Otero-Mateo & Pablo Ballesteros-Pérez, 2022. "The Influence of Knowledge on Managing Risk for the Success in Complex Construction Projects: The IPMA Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-30, August.
    5. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Journals that Rise from the Fourth Quartile to the First Quartile in Six Years or Less: Mechanisms of Change and the Role of Journal Self-Citations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-15, November.
    6. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Wencan Tian & Xianwen Wang & Paul Wouters, 2020. "An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2519-2549, September.
    7. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2018. "Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 132-144.
    8. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:26:y:2017:i:3:p:230-241.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.