Usage Factor vs. Impact Factor: A case study with
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
2 gostaram•1,464 visualizações
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Usage Factor vs. Impact Factor: A case study with
Semelhante a Usage Factor vs. Impact Factor: A case study with (20)
Mais de Jason Price, PhD
Mais de Jason Price, PhD (20)
Usage Factor vs. Impact Factor: A case study with
- 1. Usage Factor vs. Impact Factor: A case study with BioOne Journals Jason Price, PhD Head of Collections and Acquisitions, Claremont University Consortium eJournal Package Analyst, Statewide Calif. Electronic Library Consortium
- 2. Researcher opinion on usefulness metric: Downloads as good (or better) than citations CIBER: New journal publishing models : an international survey of senior researchers; Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas, 2005
- 3. Researcher opinion on usefulness metric: Downloads better than citations CIBER: New journal publishing models : an international survey of senior researchers; Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas, 2005
- 4. Downloads per researcher have increased more rapidly than articles per researcher Source: Elsevier Customer Research, Scopus
- 11. Strong? Impact Factor Usage Factor 2007 ISI Citations Strong? Weak? 2008 Global Downloads Weak? Strong? 2007
- 12. Impact and usage factor ranks are not related
- 13. Higher impact journals with lower usage factor
- 14. Higher usage journals with lower impact factor
- 16. Bioone Profile
- 17. Largely overlapping usage factor distributions
- 18. Local usage unrelated to usage factor
- 19. Back to Survey Data: Librarian results: new journals Ranking without Usage Factor Ranking with Usage Factor 1. Feedback from library users 1. Feedback from library users 2. Price 2. Usage Factor 3. Reputation/status of publisher 3.Price 4. Impact Factor 4. Impact Factor 5. Reputation/status of publisher
- 20. Survey Data: Librarian results: existing journals “ I would view Usage Factor as an aid for collection rather than cancellation decisions. Usage per se is a more suitable tool for us when considering cancellation.” Ranking without Usage Factor Ranking with Usage Factor 1. Feedback from library users 1. Feedback from library users 2. Usage 2. Usage 3. Price 3. Usage Factor 4. Cost per Download 4. Price 5. Impact Factor 5. Cost per Download 6. Reputation/status of publisher 6. Impact Factor 7. Reputation/status of Publisher
Notas do Editor
- First, we reviewed some published literature that surveyed authors and asked the question about whether article downloads are a good measure of usefullness (blue bars), and if author citations are a good measure (green bars). You’ll notice that not only do they overwhelming agree that citations are good measures of of the usefulness of a journal, but also that article downloads are also a good measure.
- When compared directly, Rowlands and Nicholas found that article downloads offer a better measure of the usefulness of research than citation.
- Since 2002, downloads per researcher has increased 3 to 10 fold, while articles published per researcher has remained flat (except in canada?!?)
- Out of the research, an idea of what metrics could contribute to a Usage Factor measure began to emerge. Similar to Impact Factor, it was Total Usage over a Specified Time Period of the Articles Published during a Time Period, divided by the Total articles published during the Time Period
- Sorted by Impact factor rank Nonrandom sample of Bioone journals (those attending PPM w/ IF rank) 7 journals have higher impact ranks than usage ranks Many high impact journals have medium to low impact
- Sorted by Usage factor rank 5 journals have higher usage factor ranks than IF ranks Am bio teacher as prime example of practitioner journal NOT well eval by impact
- Adding in journals attending PPM that are not ISI ranked (Green bars = no IF rank)
- # represented here
- Box plots dot = average, line = median, box includes central 50% of values
- As would be expected from earlier correlations– local or consortial downloads are not related to usage factor, although there is a strong relationship among total downloads at the local, consortial, and global levels (data not shown)
- Usage Favtor survey Phase 2 provided more information relating to how librarians would use Usage Factor. In ranking new journals, they would use it as the 2 nd most important factor, behind direct feedback, but ahead of price and Impact Factor.
- On evaluating existing journals, it would be third, behind raw usage figures, but ahead of price again. A librarian was quoted during this time period as saying, “I would view Usage Factor as an aid for collection rather than for cancellation decisions. Usage per se is a more suitable tool for us when considering cancellation”
- The plan is that the Project Steering Group was established with six publishers, one aggregator, one hosting service and broader geographical representation by libraries. Usage logs will need to be converted to a uniform standard report format suitable for analysis by an outside vendor. And RFP for this portion of the study is currently in draft form and is expected to be published early in 2009.
- This report will outline the various metrics, recommend the best ones that are practical and scalable. In addition, the report will outline various ways that data providers can capture, structure, lable, and maintain their data to ensure the rapid and reliable dissemination of their Usage Factors. Also, the report will propose audit methods for all providers to ensure their accuracy.