Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report on a three-year case study of the extent with which altmetrics compare to traditional metrics in certain subject areas for selected departments at the University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine (COM).

A three-year analysis of peer-reviewed papers and invited editorials from 2009 to 2013 written by tenure-track faculty from 20 COM departments was done to explore what subject areas received the highest altmetric scores. Research output was searched in PubMed; articles were quantified by subject area, times cited in Scopus, and its altmetric score over each of three successive years.

The topics of the highest scored altmetric papers (n = 40) sample focused on stroke, obesity, and diabetes for all three years. Analysis of high initial altmetric scores over the course of the three years shifted from a possible predictor of future impact in the second year to no indicator of long-term interest in the scientific community as the public interest waned over time.

The authors used Scopus Times Cited and Altmetrics.com to gather data.

Initially assessed a total of 3,678 unique publications and worked with the 40 highest altmetric scores in subsequent years. Data showed that subjects of interest to the public receive the highest altmetric scores and the topic areas did not change over the course of the study. These initially high altmetric scores do not indicate long-term interest by the scientific community.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview and critique of altmetrics, an understudied yet increasingly important arena of study for scholars, academics, and professional researchers.

The paper is organized into six parts: the first defines altmetrics; the second examines how altmetrics work; the third presents multiple typologies under which altmetrics can be classified and studied; the fourth details the technological capabilities of altmetrics; the fifth presents a critical evaluation of the “pros and cons” of altmetrics; and, the sixth outlines some directions for future and ongoing research.

The conclusions detail the strengths and limitations of altmetrics and point toward avenues for continued research and development.

This paper is among the first to provide a substantive review and evaluation of altmetrics for academics to consider when adopting, utilizing, and researching these tools.

The study showcases the social impact (online attention) of funded research compared to nonfunded for the BRICS nations. The key themes achieving online attention across the funded and nonfunded publications have also been identified.

A total of 1,507,931 articles published across the BRICS nations for a period of three (03) years were downloaded from the Clarivate Analytics' InCites database of Web of Science (WoS). “Funding Acknowledgement Analysis (FAA)” was used to identify the funded and nonfunded publications. The altmetric score of the top highly cited (1%) publications was gauged from the largest altmetric data provider, “Altmetric.com”, using the DOI of each publication. One-way ANOVA test was used to know the impact of funding on the mentions (altmetrics) across different data sources covered by Altmetric.com. The highly predominant keywords (hotspots) have been mapped using bibliometric software, “VOSviewer”.

The mentions across all the altmetric sources for funded research are higher compared to nonfunded research for all nations. It indicates the altmetric advantage for funded research, as funded publications are more discussed, tweeted, shared and have more readers and citations; thus, acquiring more social impact/online attention compared to nonfunded publications. The difference in means for funded and nonfunded publications varies across various altmetric sources and nations. Further, the authors’ keyword analysis reveals the prominence of the respective nation names in publications of the BRICS.

The study showcases the utility of indexing the funding information and whether research funding increases social impact return (online attention). It presents altmetrics as an important impact assessment and evaluation framework indicator, adding one more dimension to the research performance. The linking of funding information with the altmetric score can be used to assess the online attention and multi-flavoured impact of a particular funding programme and source/agency of a nation so that necessary strategies would be framed to improve the reach and impact of funded research. It identifies countries that achieve significant online attention for their funded publications compared to nonfunded ones, along with the key themes that can be utilised to frame research and investment plans.

The study represents the social impact of funded research compared to nonfunded across the BRICS nations.

This paper aimed to explore the presence of altmetric data across the sub-categories of the medical science discipline and also explore whether the openness of articles results in (dis)advantage for altmetrics mentions.

The research implies data carpentry methods for gathering bibliographic data related to narrow fields of medical science discipline from the Scopus database with at least one Indian author affiliation during 2012–2021. The corresponding data were also collected from three different sources: Altmetric.com, Mendeley.com and Unpaywall.org, using OpenRefine and REST/API calls. Further, the authors observed open access altmetric advantages (OAAA) and categorical OAAA (COAAA) across seven altmetric platforms for all articles as well as discipline-wise.

The result shows that the overall coverage of altmetric events is still low, but it shows an increasing trend from the past. Mendeley has the largest coverage; almost 97.12% of publications are covered. The health policy discipline has extensive coverage across altmetric platforms (nearly 57.40% of publications in altmetrics and 99.23% in Mendeley), whereas the drug guides has the lowest (almost 0.92% in Altmetrics and 77.05% in Mendeley). Moreover, the OA articles have been highly covered in altmetrics than those of non-OA articles, and bronze OA articles covered mostly compared to others. News registered with the significant OA altmetric advantages across disciplines. Categorically, bronze and hybrid OA have the largest altmetric advantages.

This research is a unique attempt to apply OAAA and COAAA to explore OA altmetric advantages of narrow subject categories of medical science disciplines.

The authors explore the emergence of altmetrics and Open Access (OA) publishing and discuss why their adoption in the management field lags behind other fields such as life sciences. The authors draw on the status literature to discuss the knowledge production and consumption underpinned by the ‘Impact Factor’ metric and high-status ‘Toll Access’ journals and their implications. The authors explain the rise of altmetrics and OA publishing and their implications on the production and consumption of knowledge. The authors then examine the current situation, challenges and offer reflections on the management field’s progression towards a more open research regime in the digital era.

Scientific impact is traditionally assessed with citation-based metrics. Recently, altmetric indices have been introduced to measure scientific impact both within academia and among the general public. However, little research has investigated the association between the linguistic features of research article titles and received online attention. To address this issue, the authors examined in the present study the relationship between a series of title features and altmetric attention scores.

The data included 8,658 titles of Science articles. The authors extracted six features from the title corpus (i.e. mean word length, lexical sophistication, lexical density, title length, syntactic dependency length and sentiment score). The authors performed Spearman’s rank analyses to analyze the correlations between these features and online impact. The authors then conducted a stepwise backward multiple regression to identify predictors for the articles' online impact.

The correlation analyses revealed weak but significant correlations between all six title features and the altmetric attention scores. The regression analysis showed that four linguistic features of titles (mean word length, lexical sophistication, title length and sentiment score) have modest predictive effects on the online impact of research articles.

In the internet era with the widespread use of social media and online platforms, it is becoming increasingly important for researchers to adapt to the changing context of research evaluation. This study identifies several linguistic features that deserve scholars’ attention in the writing of article titles. It also has practical implications for academic administrators and pedagogical implications for instructors of academic writing courses.

This paper aims to analyze the relationships between discourse leading indicators and citations from perspectives of integrating altmetrics indicators and tries to provide references for comprehending the quantitative indicators of scientific communication in the era of open science, constructing the evaluation indicator system of the discourse leading for academic journals and then improving the discourse leading of academic journals.

Based on the theory of communication and the new pattern of scientific communication, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. This paper obtains 874,119 citations and 6,378,843 altmetrics indicators data from 65 international multidisciplinary academic journals. The relationships between indicators of discourse leading (altmetrics) and citations are studied by using descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, negative binomial regression analysis and marginal effects analysis. Meanwhile, the connotation and essential characteristics of the indicators, the strength and influence of the relationships are further analyzed and explored. It is proposed that academic journals' discourse leading is composed of news discourse leading, social media discourse leading, peer review discourse leading, encyclopedic discourse leading, video discourse leading and policy discourse leading.

It is discovered that the 15 altmetrics indicators data have a low degree of centralization to the center and a high degree of polarization dispersion overall; their distribution patterns do not follow the normal distributions, and their distributions have the characteristics of long-tailed right-peaked curves. Overall, 15 indicators show positive correlations and wide gaps exist in the number of mentions and coverage. The academic journals' discourse leading significantly affects total cites. When altmetrics indicators of international mainstream academic and social media platforms are used to explore the connotation and characteristics of academic journals' discourse leading, the influence or contribution of social media discourse, news discourse, video discourse, policy discourse, peer review discourse and encyclopedia discourse on the citations decreases in turn.

This study is innovative from the academic journal level to analyze the deep relationships between altmetrics indicators and citations from the perspective of correlation. First, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. Second, this paper integrates altmetrics indicators to study the correlation between discourse leading indicators and citations. This study will help to enrich and improve basic theoretical issues and indicators’ composition, provide theoretical support for the construction of the discourse leading evaluation system for academic journals and provide ideas for the evaluation practice activities.

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.

Under the background of open science, this paper integrates altmetrics data and combines multiple evaluation methods to analyze and evaluate the indicators' characteristics of discourse leading for academic journals, which is of great significance to enrich and improve the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

This paper obtained 795,631 citations and 10.3 million altmetrics indicators data for 126,424 published papers from 151 medicine, general and internal academic journals. In this paper, descriptive statistical analysis and distribution rules of evaluation indicators are first carried out at the macro level. The distribution characteristics of evaluation indicators under different international collaboration conditions are analyzed at the micro level. Second, according to the characteristics and connotation of the evaluation indicators, the evaluation indicator system is constructed. Third, correlation analysis, factor analysis, entropy weight method and TOPSIS method are adopted to evaluate and analyze the discourse leading in medicine, general and internal academic journals by integrating altmetrics. At the same time, this paper verifies the reliability of the evaluation results.

Six features of discourse leading integrated with altmetrics indicators are obtained. In the era of open science, online academic exchanges are becoming more and more popular. The evaluation activities based on altmetrics have fine-grained and procedural advantages. It is feasible and necessary to integrate altmetrics indicators and combine the advantages of multiple methods to evaluate the academic journals' discourse leading of which are in a diversified academic ecosystem.

This paper uses descriptive statistical analysis to analyze the distribution characteristics and distribution rules of discourse leading indicators of academic journals and to explore the availability of altmetrics indicators and the effectiveness of constructing an evaluation system. Then, combining the advantages of multiple evaluation methods, The author integrates altmetrics indicators to comprehensively evaluate the discourse leading of academic journals and verify the reliability of the evaluation results. This paper aims to provide references for enriching and improving the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights on the improvement of academic impact and social attention of Chinese collaboration articles from the perspective of altmetrics.

The authors retrieved articles which are from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and indexed by Nature Index as sampled articles. With the methods of distribution analysis, comparative analysis and correlation analysis, authors compare the coverage differences of altmetric sources for CAS Chinese articles and CAS international articles, and analyze the correlation between the collaborative information and the altmetric indicators.

Results show that the coverage of altmetric sources for CAS international articles is greater than that for CAS Chinese articles. Mendeley and Twitter cover a higher percentage of collaborative articles than other sources studied. Collaborative information, such as number of collaborating countries, number of collaborating institutions, and number of collaborating authors, show moderate or low correlation with altmetric indicator counts. Mendeley readership has a moderate correlation with altmetric indicators like tweets, news outlets and blog posts.

International scientific collaboration at different levels improves attention, academic impact and social impact of articles. International collaboration and altmetrics indicators supplement each other. The results of this study can help us better understand the relationship between altmetrics indicators of articles and collaborative information of articles. It is of great significance to evaluate the influence of Chinese articles, as well as help to improve the academic impact and social attention of Chinese collaboration articles.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, few studies focus on the use of altmetrics to assess publications produced through Chinese academic collaboration. This study is one of a few attempts that include the number of collaborating countries, number of collaborating institutions, and number of collaborating authors of scientific collaboration into the discussion of altmetric indicators and figured out the relationship among them.