%0 Journal Article %1 herb2016impactmessung %A Herb, Ulrich %D 2016 %I Verein zur Förderung der Informationswissenschaft (VFI) %J Young Information Scientist %K impact messung open_science %T Impactmessung, Transparenz & Open Science %U http://eprints.rclis.org/29991/ %V 1 %X Objective -- The article discusses if it is sufficient to scale down Open Science to a free availability of objects, for example scientific publications (open access), or whether impact metrics that steer science and scientists must also be re-modeled under open science principles. Methods -- Well-known, citation-based impact metrics and new, alternative metrics are reviewed using the following criteria to assess whether they are open metrics: Scientific verifiability and modeling, transparency in their construction and methodology, consistency with the principles of open knowledge. Results -- Neither citation-based impact metrics nor alternative metrics can be labeled open metrics. They all lack scientific foundation, transparency and verifiability. Conclusions -- Since neither citation-based impact metrics nor alternative metrics can be considered open, it seems necessary to draw up a list of criteria for open metrics. This catalog includes aspects such as justifications and documentation for the selection of data sources, open availability of the data underlying the calculation of the impact scores, options to retrieve the data automatically via software interfaces, logical, scientific and documented justifications about the formula or parameters used to calculate impact values.

@article{herb2016impactmessung, abstract = {Objective {--} The article discusses if it is sufficient to scale down Open Science to a free availability of objects, for example scientific publications (open access), or whether impact metrics that steer science and scientists must also be re-modeled under open science principles. Methods {--} Well-known, citation-based impact metrics and new, alternative metrics are reviewed using the following criteria to assess whether they are open metrics: Scientific verifiability and modeling, transparency in their construction and methodology, consistency with the principles of open knowledge. Results {--} Neither citation-based impact metrics nor alternative metrics can be labeled open metrics. They all lack scientific foundation, transparency and verifiability. Conclusions {--} Since neither citation-based impact metrics nor alternative metrics can be considered open, it seems necessary to draw up a list of criteria for open metrics. This catalog includes aspects such as justifications and documentation for the selection of data sources, open availability of the data underlying the calculation of the impact scores, options to retrieve the data automatically via software interfaces, logical, scientific and documented justifications about the formula or parameters used to calculate impact values.}, added-at = {2016-09-14T13:52:05.000+0200}, author = {Herb, Ulrich}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/23491edd75ddd93cfa03de1e2c30a9f7f/wdees}, description = {Impactmessung, Transparenz & Open Science - E-LIS repository}, interhash = {6dbfea6046abeb38782f1ff714884570}, intrahash = {3491edd75ddd93cfa03de1e2c30a9f7f}, journal = {Young Information Scientist}, keywords = {impact messung open_science}, month = {September}, publisher = {Verein zur F{\"o}rderung der Informationswissenschaft (VFI)}, timestamp = {2016-09-14T13:52:05.000+0200}, title = {Impactmessung, Transparenz \& Open Science}, url = {http://eprints.rclis.org/29991/}, volume = 1, year = 2016 }