Search results

The main purpose of this paper is to measure the scholarly impact of LIS (Library and Information Science) open access journals (OA journals), most of which are not indexed by the Web of Science (WoS). In addition, the paper seeks to discuss measurement methods beyond citation analysis.

The study selected 97 LIS OA journals as a sample and measured their scholarly impact on the basis of citations and links. The citation counts in WoS, coverage in LISA, Web links, WIFs and Page Rank of the journals are retrieved and calculated, and correlations between citation counts, links, pages, WIFs, and Page Rank are also analyzed.

The results indicate that LIS OA journals have become a significant component of the scholarly communication system. The Journal of the Medical Library Association enjoys the highest citation counts in WoS. This journal, together with D‐Lib Magazine, Information Research, Ariadne, Cybermetrics, and First Monday are the six most important LIS OA journals. With regard to coverage in LISA, Bulletin des Bibliothèques de France (2151) performs best. As a whole, the Page Rank is relatively high, mostly at 6, 7, or 8. The study finds that correlation between citation‐based measurements and link‐based measurements tends to be significant.

This paper uses the web as a global resource to measure the impact of LIS OA journals by analyzing citation, coverage, web links and Page Rank. The focus of this study is the value of the web as a source of impact indices, rather different from the traditional research methods. It contributes to the scholarly impact measurements of OA journals.

The purpose of this paper is to offer the author’s view about the conceptualization of scholarly impact, and some of the challenges young Iberoamerican scholars face to have an impact.

This is a personal account based on previous theory and the author’s personal experience.

The paper presents a short critique of the conceptualization and measurement of scholarly impact, and introduces dimensions and challenges of being a scholar in Iberoamerica.

The paper offers an analytical perspective of scholarly impact in Iberoamerica and offers some insights to help overcome different challenges.

The rapid spread and severity of the coronavirus (COVID-19) virus have prompted a spate of scholarly research that deals with the pandemic. The purpose of this study is to measure and assess the coverage of COVID-19 research on social media and the engagement of readers with COVID-19 research on social media outlets.

An altmetric analysis was carried out in three phases. The first focused on retrieving all papers related to COVID-19. Phase two of the research aimed to measure the presence of the retrieved papers on social media using altmetric application programming interface (API). The third phase aimed to measure Mendeley readership categories using Mendeley API to extract data of readership from Mendeley for each paper.

The study suggests that while social media platforms do not give accurate measures of the impact as given by citations, they can be used to portray the social impact of the scholarly outputs and indicate the effectiveness of COVID-19 research. The results confirm a positive correlation between the number of citations to articles in databases such as Scopus and the number of views on social media sites such as Mendeley and Twitter. The results of the current study indicated that social media could serve as an indicator of the number of citations of scientific articles.

This study’s limitation is that the studied articles’ altmetrics performance was examined using only one of the altmetrics data service providers (altmetrics database). Hence, future research should explore altmetrics on the topic using more than one platform. Another limitation of the current research is that it did not explore the academic social media role in spreading fake information as the scope was limited to scholarly outputs on social media. The practical contribution of the current research is that it informs scholars about the impact of social media platforms on the spread and visibility of COVID-19 research. Also, it can help researchers better understand the importance of published COVID-19 research using social media.

This paper provides insight into the impact of COVID-19 research on social media. The paper helps to provide an understanding of how people engage with health research using altmetrics scores, which can be used as indicators of research performance.

Since the development of web 2.0, there has been a paradigm shift in methods of knowledge sharing. This has equally impacted on techniques of research evaluation. Many scholars have argued that the social utilization of research is hardly reflected in the traditional methods of research evaluation. The purpose of this paper is to determine the research impact of Library and Information Science (LIS) journals using Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) and then examine whether there is a correlation between their citations and altmetric attentions.

This paper is an attempt to contribute to this discussion with focus on the field of LIS. This paper adopted descriptive informatics to analyze LIS journals. The paper extracted citation data from WoS, Scopus and GS, and altmetric attentions from 85 LIS journals indexed by WoS. Further, 18 journals with high altmetric attention were identified, while 9 of these maintained consistent presence in the three databases used.

Findings show that of these databases, citation data from GS was found to have a high correlation with altmetric attention, while the other two databases maintained moderate correlations with altmetric attention. The paper also found a positive but non-significant correlation between citation scores and altmetric attention in the nine journals that maintained consistent presence in the three databases.

The findings of this paper will be useful to librarians in selection of relevant journals for their libraries and also will assist authors in the choice of publication outlets for their papers particularly when considering journals that have visibility and research impact.

The originality of the paper lies on empirical evidences from the citation and altmetric data extracted from the databases used for the paper.

The main purpose of this paper is to measure the status and quality of library and information science (LIS) open-access (OA) journals in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI).

The study selected 86 source journals of LIS in the SSCI as a sample and measured their status of open access. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to analyze 36 OA journals of 86 source journals, especially their production capability, academic influence and network communication ability.

The results indicate that OA journals have become an increasingly important part of LIS journals. Production capability, academic influence and network communication ability are important factors affecting the quality of OA journals. These three evaluation indicators of LIS OA journals are high, but many still have room for improvement.

As the paper is limited by collecting data, the indicators of OA journals’ quality are not all-around. So, they cannot reflect the quality of LIS OA journals. In the selection of the evaluation method, the evaluation results are limited because only one AHP method is used.

The research on evaluation of OA journals can help library and scientific research personnel use OA journals effectively. Identifying key factors on evaluation can help researchers to construct OA journals better.

The research on OA journals’ quality can also promote the study on OA process in academic circles and promote the communication, development and utilization of academic information. Such research can also enrich the theory of OA, and provide some new perspectives for the study of journals’ evaluation.

This paper measures the quality of LIS OA journals by analyzing production capability, academic influence and network communication ability. Rather than the traditional research methods, the focus of this study is on the value of the Web as a source of impact indices. It contributes to the scholarly impact measurements of OA journals.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the value of Goodreads reader ratings for measuring the wider impact of scholarly books published in the field of History.

Book titles were extracted from the reference lists of articles that appeared in 604 history journals indexed in Scopus (2007-2011). The titles were cleaned and matched with WorldCat.org (for publisher information) as well as Goodreads (for reader ratings) using an API. A set of 8,538 books was first filtered based on Dewey Decimal Classification class 900 “History and Geography”, then a subset of 997 books with the highest citations and reader ratings (i.e. top 25 per cent) was analysed separately based on additional characteristics.

A weak correlation (0.212) was found between citation counts and reader rating counts for the full data set (n=8,538). An additional correlation for the subset of 997 books indicated a similar weak correlation (0.190). Further correlations between citations, reader ratings, written reviews, and library holdings indicate that a reader rating on Goodreads was more likely to be given to a book held in an international library, including both public and academic libraries.

Research on altmetrics has focused almost exclusively on scientific journal articles appearing on social media services (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). In this paper we show the potential of Goodreads reader ratings to identify the impact of books beyond academia. As a unique altmetric data source, Goodreads can allow scholarly authors from the social sciences and humanities to measure the wider impact of their books.

The purpose of this paper is to carry out an altmetric analysis of faculty members and research scholars of Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Delhi (India) (Univ.Delhi P&A) who are members of the academic social networking site ResearchGate. ReserachGate is a rich source of altmetric indictors such as publications, reads, profile views, citations, impact points, RGScore, followers and following, etc. The RGScore, unique to ResearchGate, was further explored in depth in the study.

The data were collected manually by visiting the profile pages of all the members who had an account in ResearchGate under Univ.Delhi P&A during the first week of July, 2016. The authors found a total of 173 members in ResearchGate from the department. Data were collected for publications, reads, profile views, citations, impact points, RGScore, followers and following from the profile pages of the members. Correlations were calculated amongst the metrics provided by ResearchGate to seek the nature of the relationship amongst the various ResearchGate metrics.

The analysis revealed that the publications added by researchers to their profiles were relatively low, as 28.32 per cent of the members had not added even a single publication to their profiles. Average reads acquired per person was found to be 909.49 and the median value of reads was found to be 95. Average citation per member in ResearchGate was found to be 414.60 and the median value was found to be 7. Majority of the researchers (45.09 per cent) had impact points in the range of 0.2-50. Most of the members (35.84 per cent) had followers in the range of 1-10. Majority of the members (52.02 per cent) had profile views in the range of 1-100. Most of the members (26.01 per cent) had RGScore equivalent to 0.01. The highest correlation of RGScore was found with publications added by researchers to their profiles, followed by correlation between RGScore and reads, correlation between RGscore and profile views, correlation between RGScore and number of Full Texts and correlation between RGScore and number of followers of a researcher.

Not much research has been conducted in the area of altmetrics, especially using ResearchGate as a source of altmetrics. The findings of the study help in understanding the validity of ResearchGate as a source of altmetrics for research evaluation in a developing country such as India. Also, the novel ResearchGate indicator RGScore has been evaluated in great depth and its relationship with other ResearchGate altmetric and bibliometric indicators has been established.

This paper aims to assess the impact of research in the field of scientometrics by using the altmetrics (social media metrics) approach.

This is an applied study which uses scientometric and altmetrics methods. The research population consists of the studies and their citations published in the two core journals (Scientometrics and Journal of Informetrics) in a period of five years (included 1,738 papers and 11,504 citations). Collecting and extracting the studies directly was carried from Springer and ScienceDirect databases. The Altmetric Explorer, a service provided by Altmetric.com, was used to collect data on studies from various sources (www.altmetric.com/). The research studies with the altmetric scores were identified (included 830 papers). The altmetric scores represent the quantity and quality of attention that the study has received on social media. The association between altmetric scores and citation indicators was investigated by using correlation tests.

The findings indicated a significant, positive and weak statistical relationship between the number of citations of the studies published in the field of scientometrics and the altmetric scores of these studies, as well as the number of readers of these studies in the two social networks (Mendeley and Citeulike) with the number of their citations. In this study, there was no statistically significant relationship between the number of citations of the studies and the number of readers on Twitter. In sum, the above findings suggest that some social networks and their indices can be representations of the impact of scientific papers, similar citations. However, owing to the weakness of the correlation coefficients, the replacement of these two categories of indicators is not recommended, but it is possible to use the altmetrics indicators as complementary scientometrics indicators in evaluating the impact of research.

Investigating the impact of research on social media can reflect the social impact of research and can also be useful for libraries, universities, and research organizations in planning, budgeting, and resource allocation processes.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the research performance of Pakistani library and information science (LIS) scholars, using the altmetrics provided by ResearchGate (RG).

Purposive sampling was used to collect profiles between 15 January 2015 and 30 April 2016 of all members of RG who had self-identified as being an LIS scholar of Pakistani nationality. Additional demographic data were obtained through a small survey administered via Google Docs. Resultant data were analysed in SPSS Version 21.

Study results were broadly consistent in terms of demographical data with previous studies of this cohort. There was a positive correlation between publications, reads, and citations for scholars who had recorded at least one publication. The majority of publications had not been published in a high impact factor journal. Academic networking site profiles create the potential for collaboration, building connections, and exchanging information.

Some scholars eliminated from this study may have published at least one output but neglected to upload details to RG. It is a purposive, exploratory study that provides insights into future research.

The paper produces findings of relevance to researchers in other countries and/or disciplines who may wish to conduct a similar study of a defined cohort.

There have been no previous published research studies on altmetrics associated with Pakistani LIS scholars.