Cited by 21scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsLibrary Science and Information

To what extent does the Leiden manifesto also apply to altmetrics? A discussion of the manifesto against the background of research into altmetrics

Open access
Bornmann, Lutz, Haunschild, Robin·2016·Online Information Review

Abstract

Purpose: – Hicks et al.(2015) have formulated the so-called Leiden manifesto, in which they have assembled the ten principles for a meaningful evaluation of research on the basis of bibliometric data. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach: – In this work the attempt is made to indicate the relevance of the Leiden manifesto for altmetrics. Findings: – As shown by the discussion of the ten principles against the background of the knowledge about and the research into altmetrics, the principles also have a great importance for altmetrics and should be taken into account in their application. Originality/value: – Altmetrics is already frequently used in the area of research evaluation. Thus, it is important that the user of altmetrics data knows the relevance of the Leiden manifesto also in this area.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/oir-09-2015-0314

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 21

Authors
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research (DE)
Venue
Online Information Review
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2016-08-08
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
529-543
ISSN
1468-4527 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2300777861
Cited by
21
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Online Information Review (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
Keywords
Leiden Manifesto, altmetrics, research evaluation, bibliometric data, research impact assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review