Taxonomy of Altmetrics

This category contains information about how channels of dissemination have the potential to increase attention for different types scientific output. The data for this category have been derived from the interviews conducted as well as desk research. It has to be noted that the assessment of attention can under the current situation not be fully disentangled according to target groups. Yet, in a further activity the findings that went into constructing the taxonomy will be harmonized with the findings from WP4 and WP6.

This category informs about how a specific communication channel is appreciated across various scholarly audiences. The data for this category have been derived from the survey which was conducted within OpenUp. It contains information about whether scholars find a specific communication channel valuable for their scholarly communication. Note: these perceptions are based on individual assessments of researchers in a survey, not on expert opinions. Again, it must be mentioned that dissemination channels beyond established scholarly communication formats such as conference presentations and publications only rarely receive reward and are only to a lesser extent appreciated in general.

This category contains information as to whether a specific channel of communication has been attributed to be scholarly relevant. We use the term ‘scholarly relevant’ as a general term for denoting as to whether a specific channel or service is of importance for either supporting scholarly workflows or is considered to be useful for addressing specific audiences with scholarly information. The assessment is based on an analysis of the scholarly expert literature in scientometrics, bibliometrics and information science conducted in activity D 5.2. and does not provide a representative perception across all sciences. To give an example, blogs are considered as ‘scholarly relevant’ because a number of scholarly articles in this specific literature have treated them as relevant for communicating scholarly arguments to nonscientific audiences. Recommendations in f1000prime may be considered as scholarly relevant as they can provide important information about the quality of a research article. At the contrary, Twitter mentions may direct attention to a specific research output but they themselves rarely contain or provide any scholarly argument.

This category contains information as to whether the appreciation of a specific communication channel is field specific or not. Some channels of communication are particularly appreciated and used in specific disciplines or scientific fields. There are, for instance, differences in how twitter is assessed among the scholarly communities. The information is based on results from the survey, analysis of scholarly literature as well as expert opinions

This category contains information about which channel of communication is tracked by which provider of altmetrics data. As D 5.1. indicated, there are different data providers in altmetrics which fulfil needs for different scholarly communities. The coverage of a specific communication may indicate as to whether the use of a communication channel relates to the needs and practices of specific scholarly communities.

Technical accessibility is meant to denote that a specific communication channel can be freely accessed through its users or by third party persons. Most usage studies in altmetrics have indicated technical accessibility through the existence of APIs (Automated Programming Interface). Some of the data relevant for studies in altmetrics, however, cannot be directly accessed but are provided by commercial services.

The survey data have indicated that there are differences in appreciation and usage of specific communication channels. These differences may be even stronger because of a user bias towards senior scholars. This category therefore denotes as to whether the survey indicated differences.