Search results

The main purpose of this study is to explore and validate the question “whether altmetric mentions can predict citations to scholarly articles”. The paper attempts to explore the nature and degree of correlation between altmetrics (from ResearchGate and three social media platforms) and citations.

A large size data sample of scholarly articles published from India for the year 2016 is obtained from the Web of Science database and the corresponding altmetric data are obtained from ResearchGate and three social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook and blog through Altmetric.com aggregator). Correlations are computed between early altmetric mentions and later citation counts, for data grouped in different disciplinary groups.

Results show that the correlation between altmetric mentions and citation counts are positive, but weak. Correlations are relatively higher in the case of data from ResearchGate as compared to the data from the three social media platforms. Further, significant disciplinary differences are observed in the degree of correlations between altmetrics and citations.

The results support the idea that altmetrics do not necessarily reflect the same kind of impact as citations. However, articles that get higher altmetric attention early may actually have a slight citation advantage. Further, altmetrics from academic social networks like ResearchGate are more correlated with citations, as compared to social media platforms.

The paper has novelty in two respects. First, it takes altmetric data for a window of about 1–1.5 years after the article publication and citation counts for a longer citation window of about 3–4 years after the publication of article. Second, it is one of the first studies to analyze data from the ResearchGate platform, a popular academic social network, to understand the type and degree of correlations.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-11-2019-0364

This paper aims to explore the impact of the data observation period on the computation of altmetric measures like velocity index (VI) and half-life. Furthermore, it also attempts to determine whether article-level computations are better than computations on the whole of the data for computing such measures.

The complete publication records for the year 2016 indexed in Web of Science and their altmetric data (original tweets) obtained from PlumX are obtained and analysed. The creation date of articles is taken from Crossref. Two time-dependent variables, namely, half-life and VI are computed. The altmetric measures are computed for all articles at different observation points, and by using whole group as well as article-level averaging.

The results show that use of longer observation period significantly changes the values of different altmetric measures computed. Furthermore, use of article-level delineation is advocated for computing different measures for a more accurate representation of the true values for the article distribution.

The analytical results show that using different observation periods change the measured values of the time-related altmetric measures. It is suggested that longer observation period should be used for appropriate measurement of altmetric measures. Furthermore, the use of article-level delineation for computing the measures is advocated as a more accurate method to capture the true values of such measures.

The research work suggests that altmetric mentions accrue for a longer period than the commonly believed short life span and therefore the altmetric measurements should not be limited to observation of early accrued data only.

The present study indicates that use of altmetric measures for research evaluation or other purposes should be based on data for a longer observation period and article-level delineation may be preferred. It contradicts the common belief that tweet accumulation about scholarly articles decay quickly.

Several studies have shown that altmetric data correlate well with citations and hence early altmetric counts can be used to predict future citations. Inspired by these findings, majority of such monitoring and measuring exercises have focused mainly on capturing immediate altmetric event data for articles just after the publication of the paper. This paper demonstrates the impact of the observation period and article-level aggregation on such computations and suggests to use a longer observation period and article-level delineation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first such study of its kind and presents novel findings.

The purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive analysis of the current status and development of the digital journalism field from 1987 to 2021 using the Dimensions database.

Using the Dimensions.ai database, 1734 articles were identified through search strategies which were published from 1987 to 2021. The downloaded results were analysed using specific parameters with the help of bibliometric and science mapping tools: Biblioshiny, VOSviewer and CiteSpace. The key contributions of the present comprehensive bibliometric study of the digital journalism field can be seen in terms of the following aspects: (1) Publication analysis from the perspectives of publication growth, key journals, contributing authors, institutions and countries done through Biblioshiny package. (2) Citation network analysis from the perspective of co-citation structure of papers, authors, countries and institutions done through VOSviewer. (3) Timeline analysis and keywords burst detection to identify hotspots and research trends in digital journalism with the help of CiteSpace.

The first paper with the keyword digital journalism was published in the year 1989. From 2011 onwards, there has been growth in digital journalism literature. The most popular journal in digital journalism studies is Digital Journalism, Journalism, Journalism Practice, Journalism Studies. Lewis, S.C. has contributed the most number of papers in digital journalism. Further, authors from the countries the USA, Spain, Brazil and UK have contributed immensely. The citation network of authors, institutions and countries contributing to digital journalism studies has also been explored in the study. Through burst analysis, hot topics in digital journalism were identified.

The paper provides a complete overview of the growth of digital journalism literature published from 1987 to 2021. The originality of this work lies in the triangulation of Biblioshiny, VOSviewer and CiteSpace software to present various aspects of bibliometric study. Findings of the study can help the researchers to identify areas as well as journals, authors, institutions working actively in the field of digital journalism.