Altmetrics-Studie: Neue Verfahren wissenschaftlicher Impact-Messung

Die niederländische SURFfoundation hat eine sehr lesenswerte Studie über innovative Verfahren der Impact-Messungen in der Wissenschaft veröffentlicht.  Unter dem Titel „Users, narcissism and control – tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century“ (PDF) beleuchtet die Studie Dienste und Verfahren, mit denen abseits des Impact-Faktors die Wirkung wissenschaftlicher Veröffentlichungen gemessen werden kann. U.a. werden Dienste wie Peer Evaluation, ScienceCard und PLoS Article-Level Metrics betrachtet.

Die Studie beschreibt das Potenzial dieser Dienste wie folgt:

„These allow the researcher to make some sort of limited self-assessment with respect to the response to his/her work. However, this does not mean that these technologies and databases can also legitimately be used in research assessments. For this application, they need to adhere to a far stricter protocol of data quality and indicator reliability and validity. Most new tools do not (yet) comply with these more strict quality criteria.“

Darüber hinaus werden folgende Empfehlungen gegeben:

„The report therefore advises to start a concerted research programme in the dynamics, properties, and potential use of new web based metrics which relates these new measures to the already established indicators of publication impact. Its goal would be to contribute to the development of more useful tools for the scientific and scholarly community. This programme should monitor at least the following tools: F1000, Microsoft Academic Research, Total-Impact, PlosONE altmetrics, and Google Scholar. The programme should moreover develop the following key research themes: concepts of new web metrics and altmetrics; standardisation of tools and data; and the use and normalisation of the new metrics.“

Im Januar erschien im Chronicle of Higher Education ein schöner Artikel („Scholars Seek Better Ways to Track Impact Online“) über die Diskussionen zu diesem Thema, die im Kontext des Altmetrics-Manifest geführt werden.

Forschungsdatenmanagement: Welche Anforderungen haben Wissenschaftler?

„Welche Anforderungen haben Wissenschaftler bei der dauerhaften Zugänglichkeit wissenschaftlicher Daten?“ Dieser Frage geht eine Studie der niederländischen SURFfoundation nach. In der Metadstudie werden fünfzehn Publikationen zu dem Themenkomplex betrachtet.

Der Autor Martin Feijen benennt folgende Faktoren, die für Wissenschaftsmanagement und Infrastruktureinrichtungen von zentraler Bedeutung bei der Entwicklung von Massnahmen des Forschungsdatenmanagements sind (S. 4):

  • Tools and services must be in tune with researchers’ workflows, which are often discipline-specific (and sometimes even project-specific).
  • Researchers resist top-down and/or mandatory schemes.
  • Researchers favour a “cafeteria” model in which they can pick and choose from a set of services.
  • Tools and services must be easy to use.
  • Researchers must be in control of what happens to their data, who has access to it, and under what conditions. Consequently, they want to be sure that whoever is dealing with their data (data centre, library, etc.) will respect their interests.
  • Researchers expect tools and services to support their day-to-day work within the research project; long-term/public requirements must be subordinate to that interest.
  • The benefits of the support must clearly visible – not in three years’ time, but now.
  • Support must be local, hands-on, and available when needed.

Die Studie „What researchers want“ (PDF) ist frei zugänglich.

PS: Die duz hat sich in ihrer März-Ausgabe unter dem Titel „Der Kampf um den Rohstoff des Wissens“ dem Thema  angenommen. Leider sind die Beiträge mehrheitlich nicht Open Access.

Knowledge Exchange: Reports zu Open Access

Im Rahmen der „Knowledge Exchange“ Initiative wurden zwei interessante Reports zu Open Access veröffentlicht:

Friend, F.: Impact of Open Access outside European universities. Knowledge Exchange, 2010. Online.

This briefing paper explores the impact of open access upon potential users of research outputs outside the walls of research-led European universities, where the economic value of open access may be even greater than the academic value within universities. The potential impact of open access is understood in many communities but requires a greater volume of open access content to be available for the full potential to be realised. More open access content will become available as the opportunities in open, internet-based digital scholarship are understood.

Ware, M.: Submission Fees – A tool in the transition to Open Access?. Knowledge Exchange, 2010. Online.

Based on the interviews and the modelling in the study one model in particular is regarded as the most suitable way to meet the current requirements (i.e. to strengthen open access to research publications). In this model authors pay a submission fee plus an Article Processing Fee and the article is subsequently made available in open access. Both fees are set at levels that balance acceptability with the author community with securing a meaningful mix of revenues for the Publisher.

Knowledge Exchange ist eine Netzwerk von vier europäischen Förderern: Denmark’s Electronic Research Library (DEFF), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) und  SURFfoundation.

Forschen in virtuellen Umgebungen

Zwei aktuelle Studien widmen sich den technischen und organisatorischen Dimensionen virtueller Forschungsumgebungen.

Ende Januar veröffentlichte das britische Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) seine „Virtual Research Environment Collaborative Landscape Study“ [1]:

The VRE Landscape Study aimed to investigate international developments in Virtual Research Communities (VRCs) and to evaluate them in relation to the activities in the JISC’s VRE programme. The study examined programmes in a number of key countries along with significantprojects and communities as well as some countries where developments on this front are just beginning. There has been a great deal of activity over the past few years in terms of prototype and demonstration systems moving into the mainstream of research practice. Notable trends areemerging as researchers increasingly apply collaborative systems to everyday research tasks.

Die Studie „Collaboratories: Connecting Researchers“ [2], die die niederländische SURFfoundation im April publizierte hat einen ähnlichen Fokus:

The report Collaboratories: Connecting Researchers compares eight software systems, evaluates the experience gained in twelve Dutch projects, and gives an overview of international trends. The report provides a more solid basis for providing facilities for the research community. It offers insights into the selection, construction, and use of online research collaboratories.

Die JISC-Studie betont die kulturelle Dimension virtueller Forschungsumgebungen und beschreibt das Potenzial kollaborativer Plattformen, die den gesamten Forschungsprozess begleiten.

Die SURF-Studie, welche acht Software-Lösungen und zwölf niederländische Projekte analysiert, kommt zum selben Schluss:

One thing that has become very clear in the course of this study is that ‘software’, though important, is not the crucial issue. It may ultimately be more about the question of ‘how to deal with differences’ – in applications, needs, tools, and software. And about the ambition and ability to tackle that question.


[1] Carusi, Annamaria; Reimer, Torsten: Virtual Research Environment Collaborative Landscape Study. JISC, 2010.

[2] Van der Vaart, Lilian: Collaboratories: Connecting Researchers. How to facilitate choice, design and uptake of online research collaboratories. SURFfoundation, 2010.