Do traditional scientometric indicators predict social media activity on scientific knowledge? An analysis of the ecological literature

What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors

The discussion on the 'societal impact of university research' has emerged within the recent decade with different utilisation from the British REF impact stories to the EU Framework Programmes' criteria. The fundamental idea is that (university) research should contribute to addressing societal challenges, such as climate change, and not just pursue 'scientific excellence'. Several approaches have been developed, from case studies of the 'productive interactions' that co-create knowledge with societal stakeholders to the so-called 'altmetrics' tracking online dissemination of research outputs. Nonetheless, these experiences do not always point in the same direction, and the notion of 'societal impact' seems still unclearly defined. Given the growing policy pressure on universities to address societal challenges, this paper reviews the scientific literature on the so-called 'societal impact' of university research. By querying three scientific archives (Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect), 135 relevant scientific publications are selected and discussed, looking for conceptualisations, monitoring methods and success factors. The review maps a value-laden discussion arguing for longer-term, multi-dimensional perspectives on university research impacts beyond bibliometric indicators. Findings highlight a progressive shift from 'attribution', i.e., looking for causal relationships between research and societal changes, to 'contribution', acknowledging researchers' efforts to engage with societal challenges.

The impact of air transport availability on research collaboration: A case study of four universities

This paper analyzes the impact of air transport connectivity and accessibility on scientific collaboration. Numerous studies demonstrated that the likelihood of collaboration declines with increase in distance between potential collaborators. These works commonly use simple measures of physical distance rather than actual flight capacity and frequency. Our study addresses this limitation by focusing on the relationship between flight availability and the number of scientific co-publications. Furthermore, we distinguish two components of flight availability: (1) direct and indirect air connections between airports; and (2) distance to the nearest airport from cities and towns where authors of scientific articles have their professional affiliations. Based on Zero-inflated Negative Binomial Regression, we provide evidence that greater flight availability is associated with more frequent scientific collaboration. More flight connections (connectivity) and proximity of airport (accessibility) increase the expected number of coauthored scientific papers. Moreover, direct flights and flights with one transfer are more valuable for intensifying scientific cooperation than travels involving more connecting flights. Further, analysis of four organizational sub-datasets-Arizona State University, Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, and University of Michigan-shows that the relationship between airline transport availability and scientific collaboration is not uniform, but is associated with the research profile of an institution and the characteristics of the airport that serves this institution.

“People are reading your work,” scholarly identity and social networking sites

Purpose

Scholarly identity refers to endeavors by scholars to promote their reputation, work and networks using online platforms such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Twitter. This exploratory research investigates benefits and drawbacks of scholarly identity efforts and avenues for potential library support.

Design/methodology/approach

Data from 30 semi-structured phone interviews with faculty, doctoral students and academic librarians were qualitatively analyzed using the constant comparisons method (Charmaz, 2014) and Goffman’s (1959, 1967) theoretical concept of impression management.

Findings

Results reveal that use of online platforms enables academics to connect with others and disseminate their research. scholarly identity platforms have benefits, opportunities and offer possibilities for developing academic library support. They are also fraught with drawbacks/concerns, especially related to confusion, for-profit models and reputational risk.

Research limitations/implications

This exploratory study involves analysis of a small number of interviews (30) with self-selected social scientists from one discipline (communication) and librarians. It lacks gender, race/ethnicity and geographical diversity and focuses exclusively on individuals who use social networking sites for their scholarly identity practices.

Social implications

Results highlight benefits and risks of scholarly identity work and the potential for adopting practices that consider ethical dilemmas inherent in maintaining an online social media presence. They suggest continuing to develop library support that provides strategic guidance and information on legal responsibilities regarding copyright.

Originality/value

This research aims to understand the benefits and drawbacks of Scholarly Identity platforms and explore what support academic libraries might offer. It is among the first to investigate these topics comparing perspectives of faculty, doctoral students and librarians.

How researchers view altmetrics: an investigation of ISSI participants

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to explore informetrics researchers' use of social media for academic activities, their attitudes to the applicability of altmetrics in research evaluation, the factors influencing their attitudes, and the main opportunities and weaknesses of using altmetrics.

Design/methodology/approach

A survey using a questionnaire was conducted with researchers who participated in the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics ISSI 2017 and a sample of 125 respondents was obtained.

Findings

Progressively more researchers are using social media for different types of academic activities. The study found that many factors affect informetrics researchers' attitudes in different application scenarios with respect to research evaluation. Researchers who have studied altmetrics and who began using social media platforms recently or frequently have more positive attitudes. Academic users and social users have statistically significantly disparate attitudes toward altmetrics in different disciplines and different application scenarios.

Research limitations/implications

Our study only focused on 125 informetrics researchers, who participated in ISSI 2017. We mainly used the questionnaire method, but did not conduct in-depth interviews with the researcher's views.

Originality/value

Informetrics researchers are participants in social media and major researchers of altmetrics. Previous research has examined their use of social media, and this study combines this use of social media with their attitudes to altmetrics to explore the value of altmetrics from a particular perspective. The paper also provides suggestions for the application of altmetrics in research evaluation.

Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups

The Momentum program launched in 2009 provides funding of up to 1 million Euro to establish new, independent research groups at Hungarian academic institutions. Here, our aim was to determine factors associated with the scientific output of these research groups. Publication data were downloaded from the Hungarian Scientific Work Archive (www.mtmt.hu), impact factor data were obtained from Thomson Reuters (jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com), and journal ranks were extracted from the Scimago Journal Rank database (www.scimagojr.com). Investigated input features for each grant holder include gender, degree, targeted category, international mobility, international grants, number of publications, total number of citations, H-index, best publications, impact factors in the last 2 years, and assessment scores provided by the experts. Evaluated performance indicators include cumulative impact factor, number of D1 publications, and number of first/last author D1 publications during the grant running time. Grant holders’ publication output increased by 23 and 52% for life sciences and material sciences researchers. Scientific performance was independent from gender, degree, international grants, category applied for, and citations received for the best pre-grant publication. Those with international mobility had significantly lower scientific output (yearly impact factor, number of D1 publications, number of first/last author publications). Scores received from grant review experts were independent from later publication activity. The strongest correlations were observed between scientific output and total number of citations, H-index, and impact factor in the last 2 years pre-grant. In summary, group leaders with a dynamic publication track record were able to attain the most additional momentum. Our results can help accelerate and improve future grant review processes.