Search results

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.

Social mediametrics is a subfield of measurement in which the emphasis is placed on social media data. This paper analyzes the trends and patterns of paper comprehensively mentions on Twitter, with a particular focus on Twitter's mention behaviors. It uncovers the dissemination patterns and impact of academic literature on social media. The research has significant theoretical and practical implications.

This paper explores the fundamental attributes of Twitter mentions by means of analyzing 9,476 pieces of scholarly literature (5,097 from Nature and 4,379 from Science), 1,474,898 tweets and 451,567 user information collected from Altmetric.com database and Twitter API. The study uncovers assorted Twitter mention characteristics, mention behavior patterns and data accumulation patterns.

The findings illustrate that the top academic journals on Twitter have a wider range of coverage and display similar distribution patterns to other academic communication platforms. A large number of mentioners remain unidentified, and the distribution of follower counts among the mention users exhibits a significant Pareto effect, indicating a small group of highly influential users who generate numerous mentions. Furthermore, the proportion of sharing and exchange mentions positively correlates with the number of user followers, while the incidence of supportive mentions has a negative correlation. In terms of country-specific mention behavior, Thai scholars tend to utilize supportive mentions more frequently, whereas Korean scholars prefer sharing mentions over communicating mentions. The cumulative pattern of Twitter mentions suggests that these occur before official publication, with a half-life of 6.02 days and a considerable reduction in the number of mentions is observed on the seventh day after publication.

Conducting a multi-dimensional and systematic analysis of Twitter mentions of scholarly articles can aid in comprehending and utilizing social media communication patterns. This analysis can uncover literature's distribution patterns, dissemination effects and social significance in social media.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce altmetric indicators and combine with traditional citation indicators to comprehensively evaluate the impact of academic journals from the perspective of multidimensional and multi-indicator fusion.

The authors take international multidisciplinary journals as an example, combining 14 traditional citation indicators of academic journals and introducing 14 altmetric indicators to build a comprehensive evaluation model of the impact of academic journals (academic impact and societal impact). At the same time, the authors systematically construct a journal evaluation indicator system from three dimensions. Then, the indicators data of three dimensions are evaluated by normalized processing, correlation analysis, reliability and validity analysis, PCA and factor analysis.

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses can exactly provide some useful information for academic journals’ location in the respective coordinate systems. There are strong positive correlations among the measured indicators in the three dimensions, and each indicator has a significant consistency between whole and internal. The correlation coefficient between FD1 and FD2 is 0.888 with a strong positive correlation. It shows that the traditional citation indicators provided by WoS and Scopus database are highly consistent, and they are comparable and alternative in evaluating the academic impact of journals. The correlation coefficients of FD1, FD2 with FD3 are 0.831 and 0.798. There are strong positive correlations among them, which indicate that the evaluation of journals’ societal impact based on altmetrics indicator can be considered as a potential supplement to academic impact evaluation based on citation and to reflect the multidimensional nature of journals impact in an immediate way.

Multidimensional and multi-indicator perspective evaluation can provide references for the selection of impact evaluation indicators and model optimization of academic journals, and also provide new ideas for improving the status of the impact evaluation of academic journals.

The purpose of this paper is to encourage recognition of the potential impact of an increasingly complicated information ecosystem on scientometric indicators.

The paper considers how new web technologies have impacted the role of time in scientometric indicators.

The paper suggests that it is important to be aware of the limitations of scientometrics indicators in an increasingly complicated information environment, although without a more developed semantic web there is little that can be done.

Users of scientometric indicators should refrain from claiming too much confidence in them.

The paper considers scientometric indicators at a finer granularity that usual, and will be of interest to anyone concerned the application of bibliometric indicators and the changing nature of scientific discourse.

This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the current situation of journals, examine the factors that influence their development, and establish an evaluation index system and model. The objective is to enhance the theory and methodologies used for journal evaluation and provide guidance for their positive development.

This study uses empirical data from economics journals to analyse their evaluation dimensions, methods, index system and evaluation framework. This study then assigns weights to journal data using single and combined evaluations in three dimensions: influence, communication and novelty. It calculates several evaluation metrics, including the explanation rate, information entropy value, difference coefficient and novelty degree. Finally, this study applies the concept of fuzzy mathematics to measure the final results.

The use of affiliation degree and fuzzy Borda number can synthesize ranking and score differences among evaluation methods. It combines internal objective information and improves model accuracy. The novelty of journal topics positively correlates with both the journal impact factor and social media mentions. In addition, journal communication power indicators compensate for the shortcomings of traditional citation analysis. Finally, the three-dimensional representative evaluation index serves as a reminder to academic journals to avoid the vortex of the Matthew effect.

This paper proposes a journal evaluation model comprising academic influence, communication power and novelty dimensions. It uses fuzzy Borda evaluation to address issues related to the weighing of single evaluation methods. This study also analyses the relationship of the three dimensions and offers insights for journal development in the new media era.

As a pioneering and influential journal in the field of library and information science (LIS), the Journal of Documentation (JDoc) needs to be evaluated from a bibliometric perspective. This study aimed at conducting a bibliometric overview and visualization of the scientific output of JDoc from its inception in 1945–2018.

In this bibliometric study, 2056 papers published in JDoc were analyzed. All needed data were extracted from Scopus in 9 July 2019 in CSV format. Bibliometric analyses were done in Microsoft Excel. Visualization was done by Vosviewer software and applying techniques such as co-citation, co-authorship and co-occurrence. As a limited altmetric study, JDoc highly mentioned papers and the rate of their presence in social media were extracted from Altmetric LLP, too.

There was an increasing trend in published papers and received citations. Highly cited and most influential authors in JDoc are well-known in the field. However, the contributions of developing countries and their affiliated institutions to the journal were relatively low. This is true in case of author, country and institute co-authorship patterns. Highly frequent keywords and keyword co-occurrence patterns showed that the journal considered most topics related to LIS, including newly emerged ones. The authors and sources (generally journals) cited by JDoc are all prolific and influential ones.

The results of this study can be beneficial to JDoc editorial team for decision making on its further development as well as helpful for researchers and practitioners interesting in LIS field to have better contact with and contributions to the journal.