Scopus Updates (& Altmetrics! & PLoS!)

Scopus has released a couple of updates that should be pretty exciting for some of our readers:

  • The export limit is increased from 2,000 to 20,000 records. I can already hear the eagerness of you data crunchers out there!
  • Authors can now (more) easily import their research into Scopus using their ORCID ID:

ORCID ID in Scopus

ORCID ID in Scopus

Since Scopus is admittedly not my go-to database (and for one other reason, with further detail below), I’m a bit late to this game but thanks to a handy tip from one of my coworkers, I found out that Scopus (as of last June) is including altmetrics in the article sidebar:

Scopus: altmetric sidebar

Scopus: Altmetric sidebar

For all the screenshots, I’m using the 2013 article, Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: A systematic review.

So what do you get in these alternative metrics (Scopus utilizes a 3rd party company, Altmetric, to provide this article-level information)? You can see who has shared the article on Facebook, who has tweeted it (and what they said), if anyone has saved the article on Mendeley and CiteULike:

Scopus altmetric report

Scopus altmetric report

Couple of things about the above screenshot:

  • You’ll notice a “score” – the 14 in the blue Altmetric logo in the corner. This is based on an algorithm that weights different attention this citation receives. Learn more about what contributes to the score here
  • Don’t forget the tabs at the top of the report: “Facebook,” “Score,” and “Demographics.” The one expanding on Score, I personally feel, is more useful than the 14 in the corner:

Scopus: atlmetric score report

Scopus: atlmetric score report

What I’d love to know, and haven’t had the chance to dive into yet, is how exactly this works – from an “I’m fairly comfortable with technology but don’t need to have the code explained to me” level of detail. Practical question: does this report capture only the “attention” if that attention originates from the Scopus citation? Sometimes I’m logged into Twitter and will click that little “Tweet” button embedded on so many blogs and/or articles, other times I’ll just copy and paste the URL. Does this report pick up those latter interactions? It does! Thanks to a response from Scopus (in the comments below), the attention comes from the article’s DOI and various permutations of the URL, not the Scopus citation itself. 

Probably one of the most surprising slides I saw at the Society for Scholarly Publishing conference was this one from (none other than) Scopus’ own Michael Habib:

scopus habib research impacts

The data is from a survey of research impact measures. 3,090 randomly selected Scopus users participated and the survey was conducted by Elsevier Outreach & Academic Relations. Given the incredibly low recognition for altmetrics, I was frankly a little surprised that this was incorporated into Scopus – but then again, every time I attend a conference, altmetrics are invariably among the buzzwords. Perhaps Scopus has a leading edge on this trend at the moment.

My one caveat was that the altmetrics box didn’t display at all in Chrome, my browser of choice yesterday. Firefox was fine, and today Chrome doesn’t seem to have any issues, so if you have those same challenges, give another browser a shot.

A late-breaking update: Another colleague just sent around this post from the Public Library of Science announcing their article-level metric reports, which they plan to integrate into journal search, eventually. Right now though they’re soliciting feedback from the community, including librarians – so please, dear readers, have at the service! Give it a shot and let PLoS know your thoughts at: feedback@plos.org.

5 thoughts on “Scopus Updates (& Altmetrics! & PLoS!)

  1. Thanks for the detailed write-up of the Scopus release and Altmetric for Scopus. Also thanks for the mention of my SSP slides. There were a couple of questions in the above that I am glad to answer.

    The Altmetric mentions are in relation to the original article and different versions there of (DOI, html url, etc.). They are not in relation to the Scopus record. There is more general information about how the mentions are aggregated at: http://altmetric.com/

    I would also like to clarify, that Altmetric captures much more than tweets and likes. It also captures mentions in science blogs, traditional media, F1000, and elsewhere. A more detailed list is available here:
    https://altmetric.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/83246-altmetric-for-scopus

    We will look into the issues with Chrome. Thanks for mentioning them.

    One reason we chose to offer this in Scopus is to help raise awareness. I don’t have the number off the top of my head, but awareness of altmetrics among Scopus users is significantly higher than 1%. Scopus has also provided citation data for the altmetrics tool http://impactstory.org/ and the mentioned PLOS ALM’s. A good write up on our participation in altmetrics initiatives is here:
    http://editorsupdate.elsevier.com/issue-37-october-2012/the-changing-face-of-journal-metrics/

  2. Thanks so much for the clarification, Michael. I’ve edited to post to reflect where the “attention” comes from.

    The Editors’ Update piece is a great read by the way, thank you for pointing me to that! I’ve shared it with my colleagues.

  3. Pingback: Tweet timing tells bots, people and companies apart | TECH in AMERICA (TiA)

  4. Pingback: All About Altmetrics: NISO’s Information Standards Quarterly | THL News Blog

  5. Pingback: H-Index: Google Scholar vs. Scopus vs. Web of Science | THL News Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s