Carpenter Library Assessment Conference Presentation
•
1 gostou•2,556 visualizações
Todd Carpenter's Presentation during the Library Assessment Conference 2014 in Seattle, WA on August 2014 at University of Washington. During this presentation, Todd covered the output of Phase One of NISO's alternative metrics assessment initiative.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Destaque (20)
Semelhante a Carpenter Library Assessment Conference Presentation
Semelhante a Carpenter Library Assessment Conference Presentation (20)
Mais de National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
Mais de National Information Standards Organization (NISO) (20)
Último
Último (20)
Carpenter Library Assessment Conference Presentation
- 1. When assessing impact, be sure you’re comparing digital apples to digital apples: Report of Phase 1 of NISO New Assessment IniBaBve Todd Carpenter Executive Director, NISO August 4, 2014 August 4, 2014 1
- 2. ! Non-‐profit industry trade associa9on accredited by ANSI ! Mission of developing and maintaining technical standards related to informa9on, documenta9on, discovery and distribu9on of published materials and media ! Volunteer driven organiza9on: 400+ contributors spread out across the world ! Responsible (directly and indirectly) for standards like ISSN, DOI, Dublin Core metadata, DAISY digital talking books, OpenURL, MARC records, and ISBN About August 4, 2014 2
- 3. August 4, 2014 3
- 4. What are the infrastructure elements of alternative assessments? August 4, 2014 4
- 5. Basic Definitions (So we are all talking about the same thing) August 4, 2014 5
- 6. August 4, 2014 6
- 7. Element Identification August 4, 2014 7
- 8. At what granularity? August 4, 2014 8
- 9. How long do we measure? August 4, 2014 9
- 10. August 4, 2014 10
- 11. Consistency across providers Source: Scott Chamberlain, Consuming Article-‐Level Metrics: Observations And Lessons From Comparing Aggregator Provider Data, Information Standards Quarterly, Summer 2013, Vol 25, Issue 2. August 4, 2014 11
- 12. TRUST = August 4, 2014 12
- 13. What is NISO working toward? August 4, 2014 13
- 14. August 4, 2014 14
- 15. August 4, 2014 15
- 16. Steering CommiYee • Euan Adie, Altmetric • Amy Brand, Harvard University • Mike Buschman, Plum Analy9cs • Todd Carpenter, NISO • Mar9n Fenner, Public Library of Science (PLoS) (Chair) • Michael Habib, Reed Elsevier • Gregg Gordon, Social Science Research Network (SSRN) • William Gunn, Mendeley • Neae Lagace, NISO • Jamie Liu, American Chemical Society (ACS) • Heather Piwowar, ImpactStory • John Sack, HighWire Press • Peter Shepherd, Project Counter • Chris9ne Stohn, Ex Libris • Greg Tananbaum, SPARC (Scholarly Publishing Academic Resources Coali9on) August 4, 2014 16
- 17. AlternaBve Assessment IniBaBve Phase 1 MeeBngs October 9, 2013 -‐ San Francisco, CA December 11, 2013 -‐ Washington, DC January 23-‐24 -‐ Philadelphia, PA Round of 1-‐on-‐1 interviews – March/Apr Phase 1 report published in June 2014August 4, 2014 17
- 18. Mee9ngs’ General Format • Collocated with other industry mee9ng • Morning: lightning talks, post-‐it brainstorming • Agernoon: discussion groups – X – Y – Z – Report back/react • Live streamed (video recordings are available) August 4, 2014 18
- 19. Mee9ng Lightning Talks • Expecta9ons of researchers • Exploring disciplinary differences in the use of social media in scholarly communica9on • Altmetrics as part of the services of a large university library system • Deriving altmetrics from annota9on ac9vity • Altmetrics for Ins9tu9onal Repositories: Are the metadata ready? • Snowball Metrics: Global Standards for Ins9tu9onal Benchmarking • Interna9onal Standard Name Iden9fier • Altmetric.com, Plum Analy9cs, Mendeley reader survey • TwiYer Inconsistency August 4, 2014 19 “Lightning by snowpeak is licensed under CC BY 2.0
- 20. August 4, 2014 20
- 21. August 4, 2014 21
- 22. SF Mee9ng Discussions • Business Use cases – Publishers want to serve authors, make money – People don’t value a standard, they value something that helps them – … Couldn’t iden9fy a logical standard need that actors in the space would value, and best prac9ces are of interest • Quality Data science – Themes: context, valida9on, provenance, quality, descrip9on metadata – We'll never get to the point where assessment can be done without a human in the loop, but discovery and recommenda9on can • Defini9ons – Define “ALM” and “Altmetrics” – Map the landscape – We'll never get to the point where assessment can be done without a human in the loop, but discovery and recommenda9on can August 4, 2014 22
- 23. DC Mee9ng Discussions • Business and Use Cases • Discovery – metrics only get generated if material is discovered • Qualita9ve vs. Quan9ta9ve • Iden9fying Stakeholders and their Values – stakeholders in outcomes / stakeholders in process of crea9ng metrics – shared values but tensions – branding • Defini9ons/Defining Impact – metrics and analyses – what led to success of cita9on? – how to be certain we are measuring the right things • Future Proofing – what won't change – impact -‐ hard to establish across disciplines August 4, 2014 23
- 24. Philly Mee9ng Discussions • Defini9ons – Define life cycle of scholarly output and associated metrics – Qualita9ve versus Quan9ta9ve aspects -‐ what is possible to define here – Consider other aspects of these data collec9ons • Standards – Develop defini9ons (what is a download? what is a view?) – Differen9ate between scholarly impact versus popular/social use – Define sources/characteris9cs for metrics (social, commercial, scholarly) • Data Integrity – Counter biases/gaming – Associa9on with credible en99es -‐ e.g. ORCID ID v. gmail account – Reproduceability is key – Everyone needs to be at the table to establish overall credibility • Use cases (3X) August 4, 2014 24
- 25. 30 One-‐on-‐One Interviews August 4, 2014 25
- 26. White Paper Released August 4, 2014 26
- 27. 30 One-‐on-‐One Interviews August 4, 2014 27 Takeaways: Problems with term “Altmetrics” Don’t conflate discovery, social interac9ons, and assessment Be broad in what is an output Clear in the item level iden9fica9on Consistency in methodologies to calculate metric Linking Alignment with iden9fying/naming conven9ons for new research output forms.
- 28. PotenBal work themes DefiniBons ApplicaBon to types of research outputs Discovery implicaBons Research evaluaBon Data quality and gaming Grouping, aggregaBng, and granularity Context AdopBon August 4, 2014 28
- 29. Poten9al work themes DefiniBons Applica9on to types of research outputs Discovery implica9ons Research evalua9on Data quality and gaming Grouping, aggrega9ng, and granularity Context Adop9on August 4, 2014 29
- 30. Poten9al work themes Defini9ons ApplicaBon to types of research outputs Discovery implica9ons Research evalua9on Data quality and gaming Grouping, aggrega9ng, and granularity Context Adop9on August 4, 2014 30
- 31. Poten9al work themes Defini9ons Applica9on to types of research outputs Discovery implicaBons Research evalua9on Data quality and gaming Grouping, aggrega9ng, and granularity Context Adop9on August 4, 2014 31
- 32. Poten9al work themes Defini9ons Applica9on to types of research outputs Discovery implica9ons Research evaluaBon Data quality and gaming Grouping, aggrega9ng, and granularity Context Adop9on August 4, 2014 32
- 33. Poten9al work themes Defini9ons Applica9on to types of research outputs Discovery implica9ons Research evalua9on Data quality and gaming Grouping, aggrega9ng, and granularity Context Adop9on August 4, 2014 33
- 34. Poten9al work themes Defini9ons Applica9on to types of research outputs Discovery implica9ons Research evalua9on Data quality and gaming Grouping, aggregaBng, and granularity Context Adop9on August 4, 2014 34
- 35. Poten9al work themes Defini9ons Applica9on to types of research outputs Discovery implica9ons Research evalua9on Data quality and gaming Grouping, aggrega9ng, and granularity Context Adop9on August 4, 2014 35
- 36. Poten9al work themes Defini9ons Applica9on to types of research outputs Discovery implica9ons Research evalua9on Data quality and gaming Grouping, aggrega9ng, and granularity Context AdopBon PromoBon August 4, 2014 36
- 37. AlternaBve Assessment IniBaBve Phase 2 PresentaBons of Phase 1 report (June 2014) PrioriBzaBon Effort (June -‐ Aug, 2014) Project approval (Sept 2014) Working group formaBon (Oct 2014) Consensus Development (Nov 2014 -‐ Dec 2015) Trial Use Period (Dec 15 -‐ Mar 16) PublicaBon of final recommendaBons (Jun 16) August 4, 2014 37
- 38. AlternaBve Assessments of our Assessment IniBaBve White paper downloaded 3,599 in 60 days 21 substan9ve comments received 120 in-‐person and virtual par9cipants at the mee9ngs These three mee9ngs aYracted more than 400 RSVPs Goal: generate about 40 ideas, in total, generated more than 250 Recordings of project work downloaded more than 10,000 9mes More than 440 direct tweets using the #NISOALMI hashtag Five ar9cles in tradi9onal news publica9ons 15 blog posts about the ini9a9ve August 4, 2014 38
- 39. We all want our own August 4, 2014 39
- 40. For more Project Site: www.niso.org/topics/tl/altmetrics_initiative/ White Paper: http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/ 13295/niso_altmetrics_white_paper_draft_v4.pdf August 4, 2014 40
- 41. Questions? Todd Carpenter Executive Director tcarpenter@niso.org National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 302 Baltimore, MD 21211 USA +1 (301) 654-2512 www.niso.org August 4, 2014 41