Bridging the Evaluation Gap

Article / Letter to edito

Bridging the Evaluation Gap

Article / Letter to edito

Bridging the Evaluation Gap

Article / Letter to edito

Bridging the Evaluation Gap.

Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

The emergence of neuromarketing investigated through online public communications (2002–2008)

‘Neuromarketing’ designates both a developing industry and an academic research field. This study documents the emergence of neuromarketing through the first mention of the term in traditional and new media until the stabilization of the field. Our main interest is to establish whether neuromarketing developed separately as an academic field and as an industry (with knowledge transfer from the former to the latter), or whether it was an act of co-creation. Based on a corpus gathered from a systematic search on the Web, we trace the multiple forms of engagement between academic and commercial communities, echoed but also shaped by reports in traditional and new media. We find that neuromarketing developed an identity through a set of practices and a series of debates which involved intertwined communities of academic researchers and practitioners. This result offers an alternative to the narrative of ‘knowledge transfer’ between academia and the industry and offers a contribution on how to use new kinds of digital sources in business history.Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: a large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis

This study investigates the extent to which scholarly tweets of scientific papers are engaged with by Twitter users through four types of user engagement behaviors, i.e., liking, retweeting, quoting, and replying. Based on a sample consisting of 7 million scholarly tweets of Web of Science papers, our results show that likes is the most prevalent engagement metric, covering 44% of scholarly tweets, followed by retweets (36%), whereas quotes and replies are only present for 9% and 7% of all scholarly tweets, respectively. From a disciplinary point of view, scholarly tweets in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities are more likely to trigger user engagement over other subject fields. The presence of user engagement is more associated with other Twitter-based factors (e.g., number of mentioned users in tweets and number of followers of users) than with science-based factors (e.g., citations and Mendeley readers of tweeted papers). Building on these findings, this study sheds light on the possibility to apply user engagement metrics in measuring deeper levels of Twitter reception of scholarly information.Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Bibliometric analysis of output and impact based on CRIS data: A case study on the registered output of a Dutch university

Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Competition in Science: Links Between Publication Pressure, Grant Pressure and the Academic Job Market

In the current discussions concerning the pressure for publication and to obtain grants, the questions about what publication and grant pressure actually involve and how they are linked to the academic job market, are often neglected. In this study, we show that publication and grand pressure are not just external forces but internal ones as scientists apply pressure to themselves in the process of competition. Through two surveys, one of 1,133 recent PhDs at five Dutch universities and one of 225 postdoctoral researchers at two Dutch universities, we found that publication and grant pressure have to be considered in relation with competition for academic jobs. While publication and grant pressure are perceived to be too high by a majority of these early career researchers, the effects of publication and grant pressure by themselves are limited.Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

How is science clicked on Twitter?: Click metrics for Bitly short links to scientific publications

Merit, Expertise and Measuremen