This article grasps the coercive character often associated to research impact metrics, in the wake of the ever-growing use of quantitative indicators for the evaluation of the academic performance. It does so by taking a Marxian perspective which underscores what are the historically determined attributes of academic labour that the functioning of impact metrics embodies, unfolding thereby what ‘impact’ really means concerning said social attributes of the scientific enterprise. Science communication via social media, and the array of metrics and indicators (...) surrounding it, known as alternative metrics or altmetrics, are taken as a case study. This study concludes that the coercive nature of research impact metrics is grounded on the private and independent character taken by social labour in capitalist production, an historically determined form of the social reproduction that asks for academic production to be organised and regulated in an indirect fashion, behind the backs of producers themselves – in the particular case of science, by means of quantitative indicators and performance metrics. As research impact metrics bear the power to determine how and to what extent academic labourers contribute to the general productive process, their will and consciousness become thus subsumed to such reified social subject. (shrink)

This handbook presents the state of the art of quantitative methods and models to understand and assess the science and technology system. Focusing on various aspects of the development and application of indicators derived from data on scholarly publications, patents and electronic communications, the individual chapters, written by leading experts, discuss theoretical and methodological issues, illustrate applications, highlight their policy context and relevance, and point to future research directions. A substantial portion of the book is dedicated to detailed descriptions and (...) analyses of data sources, presenting both traditional and advanced approaches. It addresses the main bibliographic metrics and indexes, such as the journal impact factor and the h-index, as well as altmetric and webometric indicators and science mapping techniques on different levels of aggregation and in the context of their value for the assessment of research performance as well as their impact on research policy and society. It also presents and critically discusses various national research evaluation systems. Complementing the sections reflecting on the science system, the technology section includes multiple chapters that explain different aspects of patent statistics, patent classification and database search methods to retrieve patent-related information. In addition, it examines the relevance of trademarks and standards as additional technological indicators. The Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators is an invaluable resource for practitioners, scientists and policy makers wanting a systematic and thorough analysis of the potential and limitations of the various approaches to assess research and research performance. (shrink)

Scientometrics, as a rule, is considered in details – the more accurate and ex­pressive the detailing, the more effective is the accounting of scientific research: the measurement of quantitative parameters of the results of scientific activity is aimed at improving the quality of scientific communication and, ultimately, the progress of science. This led to the transition from usual bibliometrics to sciento­metrics, and later to other more sophisticated forms of accounting for scientific activity, which can be divided into infometrics and (...) class='Hi'>altmetrics. Infometrics and its modifications take into account everything that could be formalized, while altmetrics seeks to include qualitative parameters in the realm of quantitative measurements. In this article, attention is focused precisely on the analysis of the relationship between quantitative methods and quantitative indicators of scien­tific activity with the progress of science thanks to a comparative assessment of bibliometrics, scientific metrics and infometrics from philosophical positions. A way out of the problematic situations in which attempts to provide a quantita­tive description of the quality of scientific activity inevitably fall, should be sought beyond the quantitative methods themselves – in the identification of their ulti­mate goal. Such a goal is the development of humanity through the progress of science. The UN program “Transforming Our World: Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development” offers a systematic vision of ways to accomplish this task, which, in particular, sets the goal of achieving equal development opportunities for every person. Bibliometrics, scientometrics and infometrics contribute to overcoming many types of social inequality – provided that people are actively involved in sci­entific activity: personal scientific achievements level out property, gender, reli­gious, ethnic and many other types of social inequality and give every participant of scientific research access to a public career and personal development. The development of each person on a rational basis is the ultimate goal of science, which is the basis of the philosophy of the strategy of global sustainable develop­ment of Mankind. (shrink)

BackgroundNew metrics have been developed to assess the impact of research and provide an indication of online media attention and data dissemination. We aimed to describe online media attention of articles evaluating cancer treatments and identify the factors associated with high online media attention.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed on March 1, 2015 for articles published during the first 6 months of 2014 in oncology and medical journals with a diverse range of impact factors, from 3.9 to 54.4, and selected (...) a sample of articles evaluating a cancer treatment regardless of study design. Altmetric Explorer was used to identify online media attention of selected articles. The primary outcome was media attention an article received online as measured by Altmetric score (i.e., number of mentions in online news outlets, science blogs and social media). Regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors associated with high media attention, and regression coefficients represent the logarithm of ratio of mean (RoM) values of Altmetric score per unit change in the covariate.ResultsAmong 792 articles, 218 (27.5%) received no online media attention (Altmetric score = 0). The median [Q1–Q3] Altmetric score was 2.0 [0.0–8.0], range 0.0–428.0. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with high Altmetric score were presence of a press release (RoM = 10.14, 95%CI [4.91–20.96]), open access to the article (RoM = 1.48, 95%CI [1.02–2.16]), and journal impact factor (RoM = 1.10, 95%CI [1.07–1.12]. As compared with observational studies, systematic reviews were not associated with high Altmetric score (RoM = 1.46, 95%CI [0.74–2.86]; P = 0.27), nor were RCTs (RoM = 0.65, 95%CI [0.41–1.02]; P = 0.059) and phase I/ii non-RCTs (RoM = 0.58, 95%CI [0.33–1.05]; P = 0.07). The articles with abstract conclusions favouring study treatments were not associated with high Altmetric score (RoM = 0.97, 95%CI [0.60–1.58]; P = 0.91).ConclusionsMost important factors associated with high online media attention were the presence of a press release and the journal impact factor. There was no evidence that study design with high level of evidence and type of abstract conclusion were associated with high online media attention. (shrink)

BackgroundMany authors choose to work with professional medical writers when reporting the results of clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review to examine the relationship between professional medical writing support (PMWS) and the quality, ethics and timeliness of publications reporting clinical trials.MethodsUsing terms related to ‘medical writer’ and ‘observational study’, we searched MEDLINE and Embase (no date limits), as well as abstracts and posters from meetings of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP; 2014–2018). We also hand-searched the journals (...) Medical Writing and The Write Stuff (2014–2018) and the bibliographies of studies identified in the electronic searches. We screened the results to identify studies that compared the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial publications written with and without declared PMWS.ResultsOur searches identified 97 potentially relevant studies, of which 89 were excluded during screening and full paper review. The remaining eight studies compared 849 publications with PMWS with 2073 articles developed without such support. In these eight studies, PMWS was shown to be associated with increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines (in 3/3 studies in which this was assessed), publication in journals with an impact factor (one study), a higher quality of written English (one study), and a lower likelihood of reporting non-pre-specified outcomes (one study). PMWS was not associated with increased adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines (one study) or with the impact of published articles (mean number of citations per year, mean number of article views per year and Altmetric score; one study). In studies that assessed timeliness of publication, PMWS was associated with a reduced time from last patient visit in clinical trials to primary publication (one study), whereas time from submission to acceptance showed inconsistent results (two studies).ConclusionsThis systematic review of eight observational studies suggests that PMWS is positively associated with measures of overall quality of reporting of clinical trials and may improve the timeliness of publication.Video abstract. (MP4 161000 kb). (shrink)

Various authors have recently expressed doubts about the public relevance of philosophy. These doubts target both academic philosophy in general and particular subfields of philosophy. This paper investigates whether these doubts are justified through two tests in which the lack of public relevance of a philosophical paper is operationalized as the degree to which that paper is isolated. Both tests suggest that academic philosophy in general is more isolated from the broader public than it should be, and confirm the hypothesis (...) that some subfields of philosophy are more isolated than others. We argue that this lack of public relevance is caused by the incentive structure of academic philosophy and discuss a range of individual-level and incentive-level solutions. (shrink)

Citations signal the significance and impact of publication outputs, conferring prestige within an academic prestige economy. The longstanding academic mandate to ‘publish or perish’ has been married with the modern expectation to ‘demonstrate impact or perish,’ reflecting an evolution in scholarly priorities and imposing a ‘double burden’ on scholars, particularly on early-career researchers and marginalised voices. I examine factors influencing citation metrics through an autoethnographic lens, situating them within my subjective experiences and exploring their broader implications. Drawing on my research (...) portfolio from 2016 to 2022, which focuses on Nigerian society, I discuss how research location and other contextual factors shape scholarly impact and citation metrics. Disparities in citation rates between Western and non-Western regions reflect unequal power, resources, and recognition distributions. I assess the interaction between citation metrics and the significance of my research portfolio, which includes five empirical and two conceptual peer-reviewed articles. While I reflect on my delayed recognition of these citation metrics and impact dynamics after earning my doctorate, I advocate for improved education on these factors in social science graduate curricula. Citations are not mere appendages: they are the lifeblood coursing through the veins of academia’s ecosystem. (shrink)