SPEC Kit 346: Scholarly Output Assessment Activities · 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Traditional measures to quantify scholarly outputs and impact based on “counts” (number of publica- tions, number of citations, journal impact factor scores, etc.) are not sufficiently robust for new forms of digital scholarship processes, nor are they meaningful for specific audiences such as the general public. Those measures are now being supplemented with other metrics, for example usage or downloads on publisher, repository, or other journal platforms; the h-index; or non-citation metrics that represent social or academic engagement of scholarly processes by scholarly and non-scholarly audiences. The proliferation of these new metrics is mirrored by the emergence of new re- sources that provide tools for tracking and reporting scholarly outputs and impact. Understanding the full array of newer metrics and tools and how they play a role in assessment of scholarly output and impact will become increasingly important for research librar- ies as the metrics become more widely available and employed by funding agencies, publishers, academic departments, and institutions. In light of the movement towards reporting schol- arly outputs and impact to demonstrate tangible and meaningful outcomes, the purpose of this survey was to obtain a snapshot of current activities undertaken by ARL member libraries in the assessment of schol- arly output and impact, provide examples for other research libraries to emulate, and identify trends that may represent promising indicators for transforma- tive service models for ARL libraries. The survey was distributed to the 125 ARL member libraries in early January 2015. Seventy-nine libraries (63%) responded by the February 17, 2015 deadline. Services Seventy-six of the respondents (96%) reported that their library provides services that relate to scholarly output assessment, such as reports, resource guides, consultation, and education. Two respondents report- ed that they are considering developing services, and one responded that another unit in the institution provides these services. Consultation or guidance on bibliometrics is the most common library service (70 respondents, or 92%), followed closely by consultation on article-level met- rics, database usage for tracking of scholarly outputs (79% each), and author disambiguation (75%). The majority of respondents also provide or plan to pro- vide publication/citation reports (54 respondents) and institutional repository reports for authors (61 respon- dents). Some libraries are offering graphs or charts for illustrative purposes (20 respondents). Other examples of services were impressive. One library reported that, “Liaison librarians do occasion- al large-scale bibliometrics projects, tracking faculty publications for a center or department.” Another reported offering bibliometrics and best practices “based upon specific disciplines and fields.” Other services include consultation on faculty credentialing, assistance with scholarly network profiles and identi- ties, tips to enhance collaboration among scholars, text analysis, and guidance on various products such as ORCID, Mendeley, Altmetric.com, Scopus, and Web of Science. Most of the libraries offer scholarly out- put assessment services to all library users. Twenty- two respondents (29%) limit services to specific user groups, typically affiliated faculty, students, research- ers, and staff.