Web log file analysis: backlinks and queries

As has been described else where, web log files are a useful source of information about visitor site use, navigation behaviour, and, to some extent, demographics. But log files can also reveal the existence of both web pages and search engine queries that are sources of new visitors.This study extracts such information from a single web log files and uses it to illustrate its value, not only to th site owner but also to those interested in investigating the online behaviour of web users

A unique style of computer‐assisted assessment

This paper examines a project at the University of Wolverhampton that has been producing its own unique style of computerized test for several years. The tests are all designed to deliver a different set of questions each time they are run, a fact which enables many of them to double as learning resources. Most of the tests are used for both formative and summative assessments on Level 1 modules, in conjunction with more traditional assessment methods

The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Levi Library Press. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: http://doi.org/10.29024/sar.10Many indicators derived from the web have been proposed to supplement citation-based indicators in support of research assessments. These indicators, often called altmetrics, are available commercially from Altmetric.com and Elsevier’s Plum Analytics or can be collected directly. These organisations can also deliver altmetrics to support institutional selfevaluations. The potential advantages of altmetrics for research evaluation are that they may reflect important non-academic impacts and may appear before citations when an article is published, thus providing earlier impact evidence. Their disadvantages often include susceptibility to gaming, data sparsity, and difficulties translating the evidence into specific types of impact. Despite these limitations, altmetrics have been widely adopted by publishers, apparently to give authors, editors and readers insights into the level of interest in recently published articles. This article summarises evidence for and against extending the adoption of altmetrics to research evaluations. It argues that whilst systematicallygathered altmetrics are inappropriate for important formal research evaluations, they can play a role in some other contexts. They can be informative when evaluating research units that rarely produce journal articles, when seeking to identify evidence of novel types of impact during institutional or other self-evaluations, and when selected by individuals or groups to support narrative-based non-academic claims. In addition, Mendeley reader counts are uniquely valuable as early (mainly) scholarly impact indicators to replace citations when gaming is not possible and early impact evidence is needed. Organisations using alternative indicators need recruit or develop in-house expertise to ensure that they are not misused, however