Some thoughts on Altmetrics’ Top 100 Journal Articles of 2016
- Gosh, I love good design
- There are only five articles that could be considered in the arts and humanities
- But all of those are in archaeology / anthropology that make use of scientific methodologies
- History, literature, the arts, linguistics, etc are nowhere to be seen
- Is that because groundbreaking research in the arts and humanities is published in monographs? And that journal articles are, for the arts and humanities, simply smaller bricks in a larger intellectual edifice?
- Or maybe because arts and humanities research get filtered through a broader range of other channels – via more public orientated books, via other institutions (museums, archives, government departments, theatres). Or it gets adapted and reinterpreted before being dispersed newspapers, the internet, social media?
- Or maybe arts and humanities journals don’t feature in Altmetric’s ranking system in the first place?
- (Or maybe because … science is just more popular in the public imagination?)
- In any case, it’s worrying that an alternative form of metrics, one specifically designed to provide a different type of insight from traditional journal impact factor, is just as unhelpful in measuring the impact of research in the arts and humanities.