DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrating Context in Twitter Metrics: Preliminary Investigation on the Possibilities of Hashtags As an Altmetric Resource

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrating Context in Twitter Metrics: Preliminary Investigation on the Possibilities of Hashtags As an Altmetric Resource Integrating context in Twitter metrics: preliminary investigation on the possibilities of hashtags as an altmetric resource Jeroen van Honk; Rodrigo Costas Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands Introduction In the burgeoning field of altmetric research Twitter is seen as a relevant resource in the discussion and dissemination of scientific literature, being one of the most important altmetric sources (Robinson-García et al, 2014). The need for more contextualized and content analyses of Twitter data has been highlighted already in the altmetric literature (Haustein et al, 2014b; Bornnman,2016). One prominent element in Twitter is the use of hashtags, a user-generated mechanism for tagging and collating tweets which are related to specific topics (Bruns & Burgess, 2011). Thus hashtags work as a linking element used to create impromptu categorizations of tweets but also as a means for Twitter users to follow a “conversation” on a topic and communicate with similar communities of interest around the hashtag. Thus, hashtags can be seen as instruments to enlarge the potential audience of a tweet and the mentioned publication. In the field of altmetrics, particularly on Twitter studies, there have been some studies that have considered the presence of hashtags in tweets mentioning scientific publications. For example, Haustein et al (2014a) found that hashtags were more common among active astrophysicists in Twitter than those with a scarce Twitter activity, and actually their use of hashtags can be linked to different behaviors and groups of users (Holmberg et al, 2014). To the best of our knowledge however, there hasn’t been any large scale analysis of the value of hashtags as potential boosters of other impacts beyond Twitter. In this article, we hypothesize that, due to their broadcasting potential, the use of hashtags will increase the visibility and uptake of scientific publications for other altmetric sources (i.e., blogs, news, and Mendeley users). Similarly, we explore the possibility of analyzing the network of hashtags occurring around a scientific area. Methodology Altmetric.com data on Twitter mentions to scientific publications (until June 2016 a total of 3.9 million publications had received more than 24 mill. tweets) has been considered. Hashtags in the tweets to scientific publications have been further extracted. An interesting perspective about hashtags is their consideration as streams of “conversations”. Thus, two Twitter conversations (i.e. hashtags) are coupled if they both co-occur in tweets with one or more publication(s) in common. This approach allows studying the network of hashtags in a given field by how users have been linking hashtags with publications. In this study we look at the hashtag coupling network for the publications in the field of bibliometrics. 1 Results Figure 1 depicts the average blog impact per publication depending on whether they have been (re)tweeted together with at least one hashtag or not. The x-axis presents the cohort of publications by their total number of tweets. Thus we can explore whether the average impact in blogs of publications that have been linked to at least a hashtag is higher/lower as compared to those without such a linkage, controlling by their number of tweets. It is visible how for the lowest levels of tweeting activity (i.e. publications with less than 5 tweets) the blog impact is very similar regardless the linkage of publications to hashtags. However, this changes from 5 tweets onwards, when blog impact is higher for those publications that have been linked to a hashtag. Interestingly enough, we can also see how the gap between the number of documents without hashtags decreases as the number of tweets increases. This suggests that the chances of a paper being linked to a hashtag increases with the overall (re)tweeting activity. Figures 2 and 3 show very similar patterns for News mainstream media mentions and Mendeley readership with an increasing pattern in the visibility of publications with hashtags. Publications (and tweets) can be linked to more than one hashtag. Figure 4 explores whether the linkage of a publication to several different hashtags has an effect on its Mendeley readership, showing that although with small differences, Mendeley readership seem to be higher for papers with a linkage to at least 5 hashtags. Finally, a hashtag coupling map for the subset of tweets related to publications in bibliometric journals (Figure 5) was created. In this map different clusters of hashtags are identified. For instance, the blue cluster in the top-right corner is physics-related, with hashtags like “arxiv”, “physics” and “bigdata”. The green and red clusters deal with bibliometric terms, with an emphasis of altmetrics for the green cluster, and more general hashtags like “research” and “science” in the red cluster. In order to determine the effect of retweets (Holmberg & Thelwall (2014) already pointed out the idea that retweets are more prone to have hashtags than original tweets) in the perception of the hashtag network we excluded them from the analysis (Figure 6). When retweets are removed, it seems that the map gets sparser as the linkages among hashtags is less strong, therefore the role of retweets in hashtag coupling is also an element to consider. 2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 no hashtag 0.2 hashtag 0.1 Avg. Avg. nr. of posts blog perdocument 0 23 (1/6)23 19(2/9) 20(1/8) 21(1/7) 22(1/7) 24(1/6) 25(1/5) 12 (6/21)12 5 (64/89) 6 (40/68) 7 (27/53) 8 (19/42) 9 (14/35) 11(8/24) 13(5/18) 14(4/16) 15(3/14) 16(3/12) 17(2/11) 18(2/10) 10(10/29) 2 (502/248) 3 (223/171) 4 (112/122) 1 (1284/397) nr. of tweets per document, with in parentheses the nr. of documents (*1000) for no hashtag and hashtag, respectively Figure 1: Effect of hashtags on correlation between number of tweets and number of blog posts 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 no hashtag 0.4 hashtag 0.2 0 Avg. Avg. nr. of News media postsperdocument 23 (1/6)23 19(2/9) 20(1/8) 21(1/7) 22(1/7) 24(1/6) 25(1/5) 12 (6/21)12 5 (64/89) 6 (40/68) 7 (27/53) 8 (19/42) 9 (14/35) 11(8/24) 13(5/18) 14(4/16) 15(3/14) 16(3/12) 17(2/11) 18(2/10) 10(10/29) 2 (502/248) 3 (223/171) 4 (112/122) 1 (1284/397) nr. of tweets per document, with in parentheses the nr. of documents (*1000) for no hashtag and hashtag, respectively Figure 2: Effect of hashtags on correlation between number of tweets and number of news posts 3 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 no hashtag 10 hashtag 5 0 Avg. Avg. nr. of readers Mendeleyin 22 (1/7)22 (1/6)24 19(2/9) 20(1/8) 21(1/7) 23(1/6) 25(1/5) 5 (64/89) 6 (40/68) 7 (27/53) 8 (19/42) 9 (14/35) 11(8/24) 12(6/21) 13(5/18) 14(4/16) 15(3/14) 16(3/12) 17(2/11) 18(2/10) 10(10/29) 2 (502/248) 3 (223/171) 4 (112/122) 1 (1284/397) Nr. of tweets per document, with in parentheses the nr. of documents (*1000) for no hashtag and hashtag, respectively Figure 3: Effect of hashtags on correlation between “average times saved in Mendeley” and number of tweets 45 40 35 30 25 no hashtags 1-2 hashtag(s) 20 3-4 hashtags 5+ hashtags 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Figure 4: Effect of number of distinct hashtags on correlation between “average times saved in Mendeley” and number of tweets 4 Figure 5: Vosviewer map of hashtag coupling – all tweets considered Figure 5: Vosviewer map of hashtag coupling - excluding retweets 5 Conclusions and further research This paper explores the potential interest of hashtags in in the Twitter analysis of scientific publications. Our results support the idea that hashtags can be seen as an element related to the higher reception of scientific publications beyond Twitter. The ‘hashtag coupling’ map introduces the possibility of identifying conversations happening around scientific topics and how they are connected. This type of maps can be an instrument for librarians in order to inform users about hashtags related to their areas of interest. These maps can also help Twitter users to identify inconsistencies among the different hashtags used by their communities of interest, thus allowing them to improve their communication strategies. Further research will necessarily focus on studying the different characterization and typologies of hashtags and their role in boosting other impacts and the visibility of scientific publications. For example, is it better to be linked to a broad conversation where many of the users may miss the tweet, or rather to a narrower conversation with more expert and interested users? Also the role of retweets needs to be considered. More fine-tuning and in-depth analyses are indeed necessary, but this paper already shows that hashtags are a key element in the understanding of Twitter metrics and altmetrics. Acknowledgments This research has been partly by funding from the South African DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and STI Policy (SciSTIP). References Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. E. (2011). The Use of Twitter Hashtags in the Formation of Ad Hoc Publics.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Altmetrics” Using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook
    Pre-Print Version Altmetrics of “altmetrics” using Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google-plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki Saeed-Ul Hassan, Uzair Ahmed Gillani [email protected] Information Technology University, 346-B Ferozepur Road, Lahore (Pakistan) Abstract: We measure the impact of “altmetrics” field by deploying altmetrics indicators using the data from Google Scholar, Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Google- plus, CiteULike, Blogs and Wiki during 2010- 2014. To capture the social impact of scientific publications, we propose an index called alt-index, analogues to h-index. Across the deployed indices, our results have shown high correlation among the indicators that capture social impact. While we observe medium Pearson’s correlation (ρ= .247) among the alt-index and h-index, a relatively high correlation is observed between social citations and scholarly citations (ρ= .646). Interestingly, we find high turnover of social citations in the field compared with the traditional scholarly citations, i.e. social citations are 42.2% more than traditional citations. The social mediums such as Twitter and Mendeley appear to be the most effective channels of social impact followed by Facebook and Google-plus. Overall, altmetrics appears to be working well in the field of “altmetrics”. Keywords: Altmetrics, Social Media, Usage Indicators, Alt-index Pre-Print Version Introduction In scholarly world, altmetrics are getting popularity as to support and/or alternative to traditional citation-based evaluation metrics such as impact factor, h-index etc. (Priem et. al., 2010). The concept of altmetrics was initially proposed in 2010 as a generalization of article level metrics and has its roots in the #altmetrics hashtag (McIntyre et al, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics
    Halevi, G., & Schimming, L. (2018). An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics. Journal of Altmetrics, 1(1): 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29024/joa.1 PERSPECTIVE An Initiative to Track Sentiments in Altmetrics Gali Halevi and Laura Schimming Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, US Corresponding author: Gali Halevi ([email protected]) A recent survey from Pew Research Center (NW, Washington & Inquiries 2018) found that over 44 million people receive science-related information from social media channels to which they subscribe. These include a variety of topics such as new discoveries in health sciences as well as “news you can use” information with practical tips (p. 3). Social and news media attention to scientific publications has been tracked for almost a decade by several platforms which aggregate all public mentions of and interactions with scientific publications. Since the amount of comments, shares, and discussions of scientific publications can reach an audience of thousands, understanding the overall “sentiment” towards the published research is a mammoth task and typically involves merely reading as many posts, shares, and comments as possible. This paper describes an initiative to track and provide sentiment analysis to large social and news media mentions and label them as “positive”, “negative” or “neutral”. Such labels will enable an overall understanding of the content that lies within these social and news media mentions of scientific publications. Keywords: sentiment analysis; opinion mining; scholarly output Background Traditionally, the impact of research has been measured through citations (Cronin 1984; Garfield 1964; Halevi & Moed 2015; Moed 2006, 2015; Seglen 1997). The number of citations a paper receives over time has been directly correlated to the perceived impact of the article.
    [Show full text]
  • Piracy of Scientific Papers in Latin America: an Analysis of Sci-Hub Usage Data
    Developing Latin America Piracy of scientific papers in Latin America: An analysis of Sci-Hub usage data Juan D. Machin-Mastromatteo Alejandro Uribe-Tirado Maria E. Romero-Ortiz This article was originally published as: Machin-Mastromatteo, J.D., Uribe-Tirado, A., and Romero-Ortiz, M. E. (2016). Piracy of scientific papers in Latin America: An analysis of Sci-Hub usage data. Information Development, 32(5), 1806–1814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266666916671080 Abstract Sci-Hub hosts pirated copies of 51 million scientific papers from commercial publishers. This article presents the site’s characteristics, it criticizes that it might be perceived as a de-facto component of the Open Access movement, it replicates an analysis published in Science using its available usage data, but limiting it to Latin America, and presents implications caused by this site for information professionals, universities and libraries. Keywords: Sci-Hub, piracy, open access, scientific articles, academic databases, serials crisis Scientific articles are vital for students, professors and researchers in universities, research centers and other knowledge institutions worldwide. When academic publishing started, academies, institutions and professional associations gathered articles, assessed their quality, collected them in journals, printed and distributed its copies; with the added difficulty of not having digital technologies. Producing journals became unsustainable for some professional societies, so commercial scientific publishers started appearing and assumed printing, sales and distribution on their behalf, while academics retained the intellectual tasks. Elsevier, among the first publishers, emerged to cover operations costs and profit from sales, now it is part of an industry that grew from the process of scientific communication; a 10 billion US dollar business (Murphy, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Citations Versus Altmetrics
    Research Data Explored: Citations versus Altmetrics Isabella Peters1, Peter Kraker2, Elisabeth Lex3, Christian Gumpenberger4, and Juan Gorraiz4 1 [email protected] ZBW Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Düsternbrooker Weg 120, D-24105 Kiel (Germany) & Kiel University, Christian-Albrechts-Platz 4, D-24118 Kiel (Germany) 2 [email protected] Know-Center, Inffeldgasse 13, A-8010 Graz (Austria) 3 [email protected] Graz University of Technology, Knowledge Technologies Institute, Inffeldgasse 13, A-8010 Graz (Austria) 4 christian.gumpenberger | [email protected] University of Vienna, Vienna University Library, Dept of Bibliometrics, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna (Austria) Abstract The study explores the citedness of research data, its distribution over time and how it is related to the availability of a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) in Thomson Reuters’ DCI (Data Citation Index). We investigate if cited research data “impact” the (social) web, reflected by altmetrics scores, and if there is any relationship between the number of citations and the sum of altmetrics scores from various social media-platforms. Three tools are used to collect and compare altmetrics scores, i.e. PlumX, ImpactStory, and Altmetric.com. In terms of coverage, PlumX is the most helpful altmetrics tool. While research data remain mostly uncited (about 85%), there has been a growing trend in citing data sets published since 2007. Surprisingly, the percentage of the number of cited research data with a DOI in DCI has decreased in the last years. Only nine repositories account for research data with DOIs and two or more citations. The number of cited research data with altmetrics scores is even lower (4 to 9%) but shows a higher coverage of research data from the last decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Altmetrics Landscape
    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Charleston Library Conference Overview of the Altmetrics Landscape Richard Cave Public Library of Science, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston Part of the Library and Information Science Commons An indexed, print copy of the Proceedings is also available for purchase at: http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/series/charleston. You may also be interested in the new series, Charleston Insights in Library, Archival, and Information Sciences. Find out more at: http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/series/charleston-insights-library-archival- and-information-sciences. Richard Cave, "Overview of the Altmetrics Landscape" (2012). Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284315124 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Overview of the Altmetrics Landscape Richard Cave, Director of IT and Computer Operations, Public Library of Science Abstract While the impact of article citations has been examined for decades, the “altmetrics” movement has exploded in the past year. Altmetrics tracks the activity on the Social Web and looks at research outputs besides research articles. Publishers of scientific research have enabled altmetrics on their articles, open source applications are available for platforms to display altmetrics on scientific research, and subscription models have been created that provide altmetrics. In the future, altmetrics will be used to help identify the broader impact of research and to quickly identify high-impact research. Altmetrics and Article-Level Metrics Washington as an academic research project to rank journals based on a vast network of citations The term “altmetrics” was coined by Jason Priem, (Eigenfactor.org, http://www.eigenfactor.org/ a PhD candidate at the School of Information and whyeigenfactor.php).
    [Show full text]
  • Impact on Citations and Altmetrics Peter E. Clayson*1, Scott
    1 The Open Access Advantage for Studies of Human Electrophysiology: Impact on Citations and Altmetrics Peter E. Clayson*1, Scott A. Baldwin2, and Michael J. Larson2,3 1Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 2Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 3Neuroscience Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT *Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL, US, 33620-7200. Email: [email protected] 2 Disclosure Michael J. Larson, PhD, is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Psychophysiology. Editing of the manuscript was handled by a separate editor and Dr. Larson was blinded from viewing the reviews or comments as well as the identities of the reviewers. 3 Abstract Barriers to accessing scientific findings contribute to knowledge inequalities based on financial resources and decrease the transparency and rigor of scientific research. Recent initiatives aim to improve access to research as well as methodological rigor via transparency and openness. We sought to determine the impact of such initiatives on open access publishing in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and the impact of open access on the attention articles received in the scholarly literature and other outlets. Data for 35,144 articles across 967 journals from the last 20 years were examined. Approximately 35% of articles were open access, and the rate of publication of open-access articles increased over time. Open access articles showed 9 to 21% more PubMed and CrossRef citations and 39% more Altmetric mentions than closed access articles. Green open access articles (i.e., author archived) did not differ from non-green open access articles (i.e., publisher archived) with respect to citations and were related to higher Altmetric mentions.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Advantage? an Altmetric Analysis of Finnish Research Publications
    Open Access advantage? An altmetric analysis of Finnish research publications Introduction Altmetrics generally rely on openly available data about mentions of research products, such as scientific articles identified by DOIs. This would suggest that an open access advantage would be inherent in altmetrics. An open access advantage has indeed been discovered in earlier research. Wang et al. (2015) found that open access articles in a specific hybrid journal received more social media attention. Alhoori et al. (2015) came to similar conclusions, however, the open access advantage they discovered was lower when factors such as journal, publication year, and citation counts were taken into account. This research in progress investigates the open access advantage of the altmetrics of Finnish research publications and examines disciplinary differences in that advantage. Data and methods Data about Finnish research publications was retrieved from the Juuli database. The data in Juuli is collected annually from Finnish research organizations. Information from a total of 114,496 publications published from 2012-2014 by authors at 14 Finnish universities was retrieved from Juuli. CrossRef was queried through their API in an effort to add missing DOIs to the data, after which a total of 38,819 publications had a DOI attached to them. These DOIs were used to search the altmetric data provided from Altmetric.com and to retrieve Mendeley readership counts from the Mendeley API. A total of 12,438 Finnish research publications from 2012-2014 had at least one altmetric event. It was discovered that some publications were collaborative between Finnish universities; in our analysis these publications were counted for each participating university, thus resulting in a total of 13,301 Finnish research publications from 2012-2014 with at least one altmetric event captured by Altmetric.com or one Mendeley reader.
    [Show full text]
  • The Most Widely Disseminated COVID-19-Related Scientific Publications
    healthcare Article The Most Widely Disseminated COVID-19-Related Scientific Publications in Online Media: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Articles with the Highest Altmetric Attention Scores Ji Yoon Moon, Dae Young Yoon * , Ji Hyun Hong , Kyoung Ja Lim, Sora Baek, Young Lan Seo and Eun Joo Yun Department of Radiology, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University, 150, Seongan-ro, Gangdong-gu, Seoul 134-701, Korea; [email protected] (J.Y.M.); [email protected] (J.H.H.); [email protected] (K.J.L.); [email protected] (S.B.); [email protected] (Y.L.S.); [email protected] (E.J.Y.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. This study’s aim was to identify and characterize the top 100 COVID-19-related scientific publications, which had received the highest Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs). Hence, we searched Altmetric Explorer using search terms such as “COVID” or “COVID-19” or “Coronavirus” or “SARS-CoV-2” or “nCoV” and then selected the top 100 articles with the highest AASs. For each article identified, we extracted the following information: the overall AAS, publishing journal, journal impact factor (IF), date of publication, language, country of origin, document type, main topic, and accessibility. The top 100 articles most frequently were published in journals with high (>10.0) IF (n = 67), were published Citation: Moon, J.Y.; Yoon, D.Y.; between March and July 2020 (n = 67), were written in English (n = 100), originated in the United Hong, J.H.; Lim, K.J.; Baek, S.; Seo, States (n = 45), were original articles (n = 59), dealt with treatment and clinical manifestations Y.L.; Yun, E.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Preprints and COVID-19: Analysis of 2020 Pandemic-Related Works from a Single Institution
    Preprints and COVID-19: Analysis of 2020 Pandemic-related Works from a Single Institution Medical Library, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Konstantina Matsoukas, MLIS; Jeanine McSweeney, MLIS; Donna Gibson, MLS; Robin O’Hanlon, MIS; Marina Chilov, MLS; Johanna Goldberg, MSLIS; Lindsay Boyce, MLIS; Fig 1. Preprint Server Choice Fig 5. Links between Preprint & Journal Article Objectives 1. Preprint record links to Journal Article DOI arXiv - 3.0% The coronavirus pandemic accelerated the acceptance of preprints by Authorea - 6.1% the clinical research community, with the need to rapidly share new bioRxiv - 24.2% research findings even leading to the inclusion of COVID preprints in bioRxiv Bull World Health Organ. - 24.2% 3.0% PubMed/PMC. This occurred even though preprints are not properly chemRxiv - 3.0% medRxiv vetted, final published versions of works, but rather preliminary scientific 51.5% medRxiv - 51.5% research reports that have not yet been evaluated and certified by peer ResearchSquare - 3.0% review. To enhance our understanding of health science preprint server SSRN - 6.1% 2. PubMed Preprint record links to both posting adoption, we characterized/analyzed the 2020 research manuscripts related to COVID-19 posted to preprint servers by researchers at our institution. Fig 2. Preprint Indexing, Publication & Linking Methods 3. PMC Preprint record links to both Yes No Thirty-three preprints meeting our inclusion criteria were identified via 54.6% 45.5% Indexed targeted searching. The preprint server, PubMed/PMC, and journal in 18/33 Pubmed publisher records were consulted to verify: manuscript posting, revision, 61.3% 38.7% and publication dates; author and affiliation information; linkage to the Published as 19/31 Journal final published versions on the preprint and PubMed/PMC Articles records.
    [Show full text]
  • Altmetrics Data Providers: a Meta- Analysis Review of the Coverage of Metrics and Publication José-Luis Ortega
    Altmetrics data providers: A meta- analysis review of the coverage of metrics and publication José-Luis Ortega How to cite this article: Ortega, José-Luis (2020). “Altmetrics data providers: A meta-analysis review of the coverage of metrics and publications”. El profesional de la información, v. 29, n. 1, e290107. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.07 Invited manuscript received on November, 20th 2019 Accepted on December, 10th 2019 José-Luis Ortega * https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9857-1511 Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC) Joint Research Unit (CSIC-University of Córdoba) Innovation, Knowledge and Transfer Plaza Camposanto de los Mártires, 7. 14004 Córdoba, Spain [email protected] Abstract The aim of this paper is to review the current and most relevant literature on the use of altmetric providers since 2012. This review is supported by a meta-analysis of the coverage and metric counts obtained by more than 100 publications that have used these bibliographic platforms for altmetric studies. The article is the most comprehensive analysis of alt- metric data providers (Lagotto, Altmetric.com, ImpactStory, Mendeley, PlumX, Crossref Event Data) and explores the co- verage of publications, social media and events from a longitudinal view. Disciplinary differences were also analysed. The results show that most of the studies are based on Altmetric.com data. This provider is the service that captures most mentions from social media sites, blogs and news outlets.PlumX has better coverage, counting moreMendeley readers, but capturing fewer events. CED has a special coverage of mentions fromWikipedia , while Lagotto and ImpactStory are becoming disused products because of their limited reach.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliometrics to Altmetrics: a Changing Trend
    International Journal of Library and Information Studies Vol.7(4) Oct-Dec, 2017 ISSN: 2231-4911 Bibliometrics to Altmetrics: A Changing Trend Ajay Kumar Chaubey Junior Research Fellow Department of Library and Information Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005 Email: [email protected] Abstract - Altmetrics include a much broader spectrum of measurements like citation counts, web based references, article views/downloads, social media mentions, news media mentions, etc. Traditional means of measuring the quality of new knowledge like the impact factor and h-index are being more effective and more meaningful through the addition of new, social media based altmetrics. altmetrics could reflect an alternative dimension of the research performance, close, perhaps, to science popularization and networking abilities, but far from citation impact. altmetrics are especially encouraging for research fields in the humanities that currently are difficult to study using established bibliometric methods. In this paper introduce altmetrics, their uses and its possible implications in libraries. The present study is based on review of published work in the field of altmetrics, bibliometrics and library and information Science. Keyword: Altmetrics, Social Media, Bibliometrics,Scientometrics Introduction: The statistical analysis of scientific literature began in 1917 by Cole and Eales in his study “History of Comparative anatomy”. These studied the contributions in the field of anatomy by counting the number of publications produced by different countries. In 1923 the study was conducted by Hulme, entitled "Statistical Analysis of the history of Science" which analysis was based on the original entries in the seventeen sections of the "English International catalogue of Scientific Literature. In 1926, A.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Webometrics / Cybermetrics, Informetrics and Altmetrics - an Emerging Field in Library and Information Science Research OPEN ACCESS Dr
    SHANLAX s han lax International Journal of Education # S I N C E 1 9 9 0 Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Webometrics / Cybermetrics, Informetrics and Altmetrics - An Emerging Field in Library and Information Science Research OPEN ACCESS Dr. P. Chellappandi Ph. D. Assistant Professor, Department of Library & Information Science Volume: 7 Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India Issue: 1 C.S. Vijayakumar Librarian, Sourashtra College, Madurai & Ph.D Scholar, Department of Library & Information Science Month: December Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India Year: 2018 Abstract This Article discusses the features and the use of Metrics such as Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Webometrics, Informetrics and Altmetrics in the field of Library and Information Science ISSN: 2320-2653 Research at present. Received: 11.11.2018 Introduction The contemporary research thrust areas of Library and information science Accepted: 29.12.2018 based on measurement process. Present developments of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Webometrics and Informatrics in Library and Information Published: 31.12.2018 Science have the capacity to understand relevant ideas from different fields of knowledge. The Scientometric study of library and information Citation: science to standardize the techniques to understand the productive pattern Chellappandi, P., and C.S. of authors. Scientometrics is related to and has overlapping interests with Vijayakumar. “Bibliometrics, bibliometrics, Informetrics and webometrics. Scientometrics, Webometrics/ Cybermetrics, Informetrics and Altmetrics - An Emerging Field in Library and Information Science Research.” Shanlax International Journal of Education, vol. 7, no. 1, 2018, pp. 5–8. Bibliometrics is a study of relationship of numbers and patterns in DOI: bibliographic data and use i.e. number of papers, growth of literature and http/doi.org/10.5281/ patterns of library and data base usage.
    [Show full text]