6th Conference on Open Access Scholarly PublishingSeptember 17th – 19th, 2014

Kevin DolbyWellcome Trust

OA Publishing Community Standards:Article Level Metrics

A Funder’s perspective

OutlineO The Wellcome Trust -

How we use Article Level Metrics Why they are important to us

Current sources of data (and the problems with them) Initiatives and collaborations changing the landscape

Set up in 1936 under the will of Sir Henry Wellcome.

Our vision is to achieve extraordinary improvements in human and animal health.

Our mission is to support the brightest minds in biomedical research and the medical humanities.

We spend approximately £650 million on research per year.

The Wellcome Trust

Current grant portfolio

Monitoring progress: WT’s key indicatorsOutcomes Key indicators of progress

Discoveries

Applications

Engagement

Research leaders

Research environment

Influence

1. significant advances in the generation of new knowledge2. contribute to discoveries with tangible impacts on health

3. contribute to the development of enabling technologies, products and devices

4. uptake of research into policy and practice5. enhanced level of informed debate in biomedicine6. significant engagement of key audiences & increased reach

7. develop a cadre of research leaders8. evidence of significant career progression among those we

support9. key contributions to the creation, development and maintenance

of major research resources10. contributions to the growth of centres of excellence

11. significant impact on science funding & policy developments12. significant impact on global research priorities and processes

o Cited 2904 times; o Normalised

Citation Impact = 327;

o Acta Crystal D JIF = 7.232

Article level metrics vs. Journal level metrics

Alternative metrics – beyond citations

MEP

Centre for Bioethics

MEP

Professor of EBM

Journal editor

Health journalist

NGO

Health, Population & Nutrition @ The World

Bank

Engagement and Influence

Monitoring progress: WT’s key indicatorsOutcomes Key indicators of progress

Discoveries

Applications

Engagement

Research leaders

Research environment

Influence

1. significant advances in the generation of new knowledge2. contribute to discoveries with tangible impacts on health

3. contribute to the development of enabling technologies, products and devices

4. uptake of research into policy and practice5. enhanced level of informed debate in biomedicine6. significant engagement of key audiences & increased reach

7. develop a cadre of research leaders8. evidence of significant career progression among those we

support9. key contributions to the creation, development and maintenance

of major research resources10. contributions to the growth of centres of excellence

11. significant impact on science funding & policy developments12. significant impact on global research priorities and processes

Sources of data

We need article-level data which is consistent in its source and meaning in order to enable sensible comparisons between outputs of different schemes

Differences between publisher-provided data mean that, primarily, we use third-party data providers:

Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge Altmetric

Citation data

Differences in citation data

Source Number of citations

Scopus 76Web of Science 64Google Scholar 103CrossRef 56PMC 44EuropePMC 66

For a sample of 358 Wellcome-associated papers, on average:o WoS had 10 cites per papero Scopus 12 cites per papero Google Scholar 18 cites per paper

Differences in citation data

NISO Altmetrics project

Aim to “undertake a two-phase initiative to explore, identify, and advance standards and/or best practices related to a new suite of potential metrics in the community”

First meeting in October 2013 The first phase identified areas for potential

standardization; a consultation period has sought to prioritise these areas; phase two will advance and develop these standards.

Final report due in November 2015

Shared sources – the ALM app

CrossRef DOI Event Tracker (DET) Pilot

Pilot group of publishers and potential users of this data Aim is to test the feasibility of developing and running an

industry -scale infrastructure to track, store and propagate DOI- related “events”.

These “events” may be come from a wide range of sources including:

scholarly publications professional or grey literature scholarly tools mainstream media social media.

CrossRef DOI Event Tracker (DET) Pilot

Looking to establish that it’s possible (and important) to separate out the infrastructure needed for tracking common information about the events from the value–added services (e.g. analysis and visualization)

So there will be the basic data available for all, with potential “premium” services on top.

More to follow…

Key points If ALM data is to be useful we have to understand where

it comes from and what it means Consistency would be good, transparency even more

important Availability is vital

thank you

k.dolby@wellcome.ac.uk

6th Conference on Open Access Scholarly PublishingSeptember 17th – 19th, 2014