Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Downloads 2387
Views 9
Full text requests 1
Collected by 1
Followed by 2
Following... 7

Total impact ?

    Send a

    Kelli has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 12

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user Kelli Barr

    Junior professional

    Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX
    Center for the Study of Interdisicplinarity, University of North Texas, Denton, TX
    Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL

    The Role of Altmetrics and Peer Review in the Democratization of Knowledge

    Export to Mendeley

    The altmetrics community, according to its manifesto, has grown around the assumption that the use of peer review as a filtering mechanism for quality scholarship has outlived its usefulness in the changing landscape of scholarly communication. It is certainly uncontroversial that the introduction of more web-based platforms for the dissemination and discussion of research has changed, and continues to change, the culture of scholarly communication. As a response to this, the altmetrics manifesto implicitly asserts the value of democratizing venues for academic communication, and therefore the importance of a diversity of measures to provide as complete a picture as possible of the scope of research impact. I argue, however, that any measure of impact for published academic work, including altmetrics, already incorporates prior judgments from various peer review processes. Article impact measures, then, do not escape the shortcomings of the peer review judgments upon which they are based and which they reflect. Additionally, evaluation schemes are simultaneously systems of incentives, and so assessing the impact of research according to a suite of altmetrics will inevitable steer research in particular directions, as peer review has done. While using altmetrics to filter for impactful or significant research would somewhat democratize the evaluation of published research, it would also centralize and concentrate decisions regarding the direction of research trajectories into the hands of those who design and administer the metrics – which represents only a small subpopulation of the academic community.

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    Title : The Role of Altmetrics and Peer Review in the Democratization of Knowledge
    Author(s) : Kelli Barr
    Abstract : The altmetrics community, according to its manifesto, has grown around the assumption that the use of peer review as a filtering mechanism for quality scholarship has outlived its usefulness in the changing landscape of scholarly communication. It is certainly uncontroversial that the introduction of more web-based platforms for the dissemination and discussion of research has changed, and continues to change, the culture of scholarly communication. As a response to this, the altmetrics manifesto implicitly asserts the value of democratizing venues for academic communication, and therefore the importance of a diversity of measures to provide as complete a picture as possible of the scope of research impact. I argue, however, that any measure of impact for published academic work, including altmetrics, already incorporates prior judgments from various peer review processes. Article impact measures, then, do not escape the shortcomings of the peer review judgments upon which they are based and which they reflect. Additionally, evaluation schemes are simultaneously systems of incentives, and so assessing the impact of research according to a suite of altmetrics will inevitable steer research in particular directions, as peer review has done. While using altmetrics to filter for impactful or significant research would somewhat democratize the evaluation of published research, it would also centralize and concentrate decisions regarding the direction of research trajectories into the hands of those who design and administer the metrics – which represents only a small subpopulation of the academic community.
    Keywords : altmetrics; research impact assessment; philosophy of science policy

    Subject : unspecified
    Area : Altmetrics
    Language : English
    Year : 2012

    Affiliations Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX
    Conference_title : altmetrics12 Workshop
    Institution : Northwestern University
    City : Evanston, IL
    Url : http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics12/barr/
    Attribution Share Alike

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has not been reviewed yet. review?

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    Kelli's Peer Evaluation activity

    Downloads 2387
    Views 9
    Full text requests 1
    Collected by 1
    • Kelli Barr, Junior professional, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
    Followed by 2
    • Aalam Wassef, Publisher, Founder of Peer Evaluation, Galerie Conradi.
    • Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Independent researcher, Las Vegas Naveda, Trivedi Global Inc., Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd.
    Following... 7
    • J. Britt Holbrook, Other, Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity, University of North Texas, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Philosophy of/as Interdisciplinarity Network, Public Philosophy Network.
    • Robert Frodeman, Professor, Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton.
    • Adam Briggle, Professor, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas.
    • Heather Piwowar, Post Doctorate, DataONE at NESCent, Dryad data repository, University of British Columbia.
    • Jason Priem, Student, Ph.D. Level, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
    • Gloria Origgi, Research Fellow, CNRS, Institut Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Paris.
    • Cameron Neylon, Senior Principal Research Fellow, STFC.

    Kelli has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 12
    • Kelli Barr, Junior professional, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.