Okay, so I'm Camilla Lindelöf from a small Swedish university dealing mainly with humanities and social sciences.

I'm not actually researching, I'm a practitioner, so I'm hoping for some directions here with my presentation from you, the expertise here in the room. And the thing is that we started to look into altmetrics at the university and there are some problems

and I will go into them because there's local level problems that you probably are, I mean they must be everywhere where it's not English speaking community. And so we did our first research evaluation

at our university and what happened was that the researchers asked for other ways to measure impact, social impact, there were ideas by course literature that I know will come up later, I think during the days.

Okay, this is very small. And for some subjects, citation analysis is not even appropriate, it's just not working. But for some it can be in addition to this and it was discussed all this with the researchers. So it was a good time to discuss these things with the researchers and it turned out

when it became two questions, we want to make impact on the local community mainly in humanities and some social sciences subjects. And where is the local community online? And what do we do about our publication channels

because we mainly publish in Swedish or in Nordic languages that is shared between the Nordic countries. So this is where I focus here. And then of course the big question is how to use it in evaluation, what's your focus on? But that is a big question to be answered elsewhere.

So where is the local community online? I mean we can look into students, we can look into citizens or yeah random people interested in science and it can be very huge. And usually these people are on Facebook or Twitter like everyone else these days.

But they also tend to look into local resources. Here is an example from a Swedish popular history journal. So they can share this on Facebook and Twitter but it's still local.

And they will also share and comment on Swedish newspapers apart from the popular science media. And they are also usually not where the researchers are. No, they are not on Mendeley or but you can contradict me there

but I think they are not on Mendeley or academia and those places. So with the, I say the Nordic publication channels, we have some trouble because identifies our scars if they are there, DOIs are very scarce.

And if there is a full text, it's usually published somewhere on a website where it's not archived or yeah, you don't really know. And we don't usually have created common licenses for that material. This is a marine archeology report

that we would like to track but it's quite difficult to do that. And just a small part there where I was looking at this blog post from UNAD and we want to do this by helping the researchers

finding ways of lifting these metrics or how do you tell these stories in their evaluation parts but usually they can write their own stories. So we're looking into something like this. That's what we're aiming for at the moment.

And this is from the Burkini debate, quite international or at least European maybe. And so we have several researchers engaged in that debate right now. And in fact, we have one in religion and education.

She's writing about religion and education. She has about 50% of her publications in English and the other part in Swedish. She is on web of science when she's in English. So that part is covered. But the Swedish part, we see that we have hard times to follow.

She is in this Burkini debate, for example. We also see that there are some very qualitative tweets like students discussing her textbooks on Twitter. We collect this data using plummets. So I should say that.

And then we have the other example. That's Marina College archeology where we have a scientist who is really engaging with the local community. But he's not, we don't find much evidence of him really. But we can see some evidence, but it's so scarce.

You cannot really build something on that. But one thing that we see is that for the English written publications, we have more data. One exception, in Facebook, we have more data for the Swedish. So we cannot look into every single post and see what's going on. But could it be that the local community

is more active on Facebook? I don't know if anyone has a theory on that. So it's about tracking in local sources and tracking local publications. Both of them we want to do. And what should we focus on?

That is what I want to try to discuss here. This is a governmental report like the gray literature mentioned before. And the other one is a humanities blog, important humanities blog in Sweden. So both of them are quite untrackable right now.

So I put together some questions that I want to leave for the audience. Yeah, if we agree that libraries can be of help to researchers gathering data, should we focus on tracking in local sources or make local publications easier to track?

Or as always, a little bit of both. We tend to do, yeah, a little bit of both when we do something in reality. When local publications are shared, which links are used? Would it be possible to see some effects of using international identifiers such as DOI? Yeah, of course it would be possible. But we see now that they use the URIs, the URLs mostly.

It's how they share. I think someone has gotten into looking into that, how people share when they do share links. And someone said here that DOI's, if someone know that in the scientific community,

DOI is used for identifying a particular publication, do the community know that? The average rest of the world. And given the interesting pattern for Facebook, would it be possible to investigate reasons for this

if they exist? Could it be that the local community is more active with local publications in certain places? I don't know. Is it possible to look into Facebook data? I don't know. It's to look to see what's going on, to have some context for the Facebook data. Yeah, please. What's your source for Facebook data?

PlamEx right now. So the answer would probably be no. Oh yeah, yeah, sure. Try to find stuff too. But I guess that would be going into negotiations with Facebook about doing a research or a study apart. Maybe. I don't know.

Just a few comments about a few things we've noticed from Facebook. Sometimes you see really unusually high numbers of likes on let's say the Mendeley Facebook page,

coming from places like Barcelona or Qatar and it will be 10 or 50 times higher than London

or something like that. And it doesn't make any sense. And my best understanding of that right now, because this happens with many other pages as well, is that there's some sort of click fraud kind of activity going on in the background. So a really big problem with using Facebook

is that they obviously don't want to really be very transparent about how many of the clicks are actual real genuine likes or whatever. So I don't know if that's a surmountable problem. But fundamentally what I think you're gonna need to do

when you look at your data is look at it longitudinally because you don't, and look at trends, because you don't have very high numbers of any of these things. And just saying that this thing is higher than that thing at a certain point in time may not tell you really anything at all about it.

Thank you, that's what I discussed. Because we see that our teachers and students are on Facebook. So there should be something interesting going on. But maybe it's just not possible because of the transparency issue and the accounts that are not really real that spams the other results here.

And yeah, we have so scarce data. But still, if researchers want to build their stories, one tweet could be important, I guess. I mean, here you can go into qualitative issues. So I don't know, Twitter is more transparent, much more transparent than Facebook. But it seems like the students prefer Facebook

if they're going to. The others who've studied this in more detail than me can comment on this, but probably better

from the raw numbers of people saying things on Facebook are higher just because there's large numbers of people there. But the mode of use does often seem to be a little bit different. The demographics of Twitter are a little bit older too. So there's a lot of skew there

that wouldn't lead me immediately to the conclusion that people like Facebook better. And even if they did, they're necessarily more interested in talking about research there versus somewhere else. And I think it takes a lot more digging into not just, again, the raw numbers of people there,

but the percentages relative to what they're doing. But maybe we want to widen the concept to really look into teacher interaction as well, talking about social impact, yeah.

Okay, I used to do this, but not for academics. But it depends on what you want to track. What do you mean by tracking Facebook? Because there are tools you can use to scrape websites where people have commented or shared articles via Facebook because of course those sites will have that data. If you're looking for clicks from Facebook,

it depends on how you tag the link. If you're looking to monitor private conversations on Facebook, Facebook is beholden to the EU Privacy Directive. So they're actually not allowed to share that information. So it's not so much that they're not transparent. They're just supposed to be protecting our privacy. So I think you can track a lot on Facebook. It's just what are you trying to track if it's private conversations?

No, sorry, but if it's like likes, shares, comments on an article that are made public or clicks on a link, that you can do. Is that fair, is that helpful? We need to know what direction to take.

I need to know more about what's possible to do. And also if it's interesting to really start doing that instead of something else. Is it valuable to, or will we find something? Because I think that has been done before looking into what is it, as you said.

Thank you.