'Traditional metrics, altmetrics and researcher profiles: A survey of faculty perceptions and use’

Abstract

Research problem This study investigated faculty perceptions and use of traditional and alternative metrics (altmetrics), as well as their perceptions and use of researcher profiles at a medium sized University in New Zealand.

Methodology A quantitative study was carried out through an anonymous online survey sent to all research active academic staff (approximately 450). The survey contained a 33 point questionnaire combining open ended and closed questions.

Results The survey received a 20% response rate (91 partial and 88 complete responses). No respondents considered traditional metrics were extremely accurate in reflecting the value of scholarly work, and only a few felt altmetrics were extremely accurate. Uptake of metrics is related to the perceived importance of those measures to academic promotion and research assessment. Sciences reported the greatest awareness and use, closely followed by social sciences. Arts and humanities expressed the least awareness and use. Respondents felt that traditional metrics should play less of a role in research evaluation and academic promotion, and that altmetrics should play a greater role. Many were also keenly aware of the dissonance between what they see as the value or impact of their work and what actually is measured and valued by the multiple institutions of academia. Respondents felt researcher profiles increase visibility, citation rates, altmetrics, but the time and skill required to maintain profiles presents a barrier to their uptake.

Implications for libraries The metrics landscape is complex and controversial, and uptake is nuanced and highly context dependent even within disciplines. Librarians should work to understand the larger debate around quantitative and qualitative indicators of impact as well the specific disciplinary milieu and individual researcher needs before providing advice and support.