In recent years, many researchers in the academy have tried to find more substantive--or, at the very least, *different*--ways to measure the impact of research than impact factor. This effort, as many folks will know, is usually summed up as “altmetrics.” While this proliferation of measures has helped scholars understand more fully the reach of their work, it can also be difficult to know whether a metric is appropriate for evaluating work, or even just to recognize differences among different metrics.
To ameliorate this problem, this week Robin Champieux (Oregon Health & Science University), Heather Coates (IUPUI), and Stacy Konkiel (Altmetric) have formally launched the Metrics Toolkit, which “provides evidence-based information about research metrics across disciplines, including how each metric is calculated, where you can find it, and how each should (and should not) be applied,” along with “examples of how to use metrics in grant applications, CVs, and promotion dossiers.” And it has a Creative Commons license, so it’s easy to share, use, or adapt to your campus.
The Metrics Toolkit currently offers information on measurements from the Altmetric Attention Score through Wikipedia citations, providing for each measurement the following schema: name; can apply to; metric definition (narrative); metric calculation (quantitative); data sources used; appropriate use cases; limitations; inappropriate use cases; available sources; transparency; an official website, if applicable; and a timeframe of coverage.
It’s a handy resource, and one that has great potential to become even more useful over time. Check out the Metrics Toolkit, and follow the project on Twitter!
Flickr photo “Metric” by Flickr user Christina Welsh / Creative Commons licensed BY-ND-2.0
