图书情报领域文献的Altmetrics指标分析

doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2015.18.017

图书情报工作 ›› 2015, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (18): 108-116.DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2015.18.017

图书情报领域文献的Altmetrics指标分析

刘晓娟, 宰冰欣

北京师范大学政府管理学院北京 100875

收稿日期:2015-08-19 修回日期:2015-09-05 出版日期:2015-09-20 发布日期:2015-09-20
作者简介:刘晓娟(ORCID:0000-0002-5727-733X),副教授,硕士生导师,E-mail:lxj_2007@bnu.edu.cn;宰冰欣(ORCID:0000-0003-3613-5786),硕士研究生。

Analysis of Altmetrics Indicators in the Field of Library and Information Science

Liu Xiaojuan, Zai Bingxin

School of Government, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875

Received:2015-08-19 Revised:2015-09-05 Online:2015-09-20 Published:2015-09-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

[目的/意义]通过分析某个学科领域中Altmetrics指标的特征,为该领域文献影响力评价提供更加科学合理的指标体系。[方法/过程]定位于图书情报领域,选取Scopus、Altmetric.com进行文献被引频次及Altmetrics指标值的采集,对数据进行统计分析、聚类分析和内容分析。[结果/结论]在众多Altmetrics指标中,Mendeley和Twitter更适合于对图书情报领域文献的影响力做出评价;Mendeley和Twitter中文献的使用群体、文献主题、内容和期刊分布都存在明显的差异性;Twitter适合对文献的社会影响力做出判断,Mendeley更适用于文献的学术影响力评价;不同工具的流行程度存在地域差异,利用Altmetrics指标时应考虑该指标对文献影响力的评价是否存在地域缺失。

关键词: Altmetrics, Mendeley, Twitter, 文献计量

Abstract:

[Purpose/significance] By analyzing the feature of Altmetrics indicators, this paper builds a scientific evaluation system to judge the impact of papers in a certain field.[Method/process] Taking the field of library and information science for example, it gathers citations and Altmetrics from Scopus and Altmetric.com, and makes a statistical analysis, cluster analysis and content analysis.[Result/conclusion] The findings show that: Mendeley and Twitter are more suitable to evaluate the impact of literatures in the field of library and information science; there are significant differences between Mendeley and Twitter in the point of user demographic, paper topic, paper content and journal distribution; Twitter is suitable to measure societal impact and Mendeley is suitable for the scholarly impact; there are regional differences in the popularity of different tools, when using an Altmetrics indicator it is necessary to consider if it could reveal the paper impact comprehensively.

Key words: Altmetrics, Mendeley, Twitter, bibliometrics

中图分类号:

G250

刘晓娟, 宰冰欣. 图书情报领域文献的Altmetrics指标分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(18): 108-116.

Liu Xiaojuan, Zai Bingxin. Analysis of Altmetrics Indicators in the Field of Library and Information Science[J]. LIS, 2015, 59(18): 108-116.

参考文献

[1] Neylon C,Wu S.Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact[J].PLoS Biology,2009,7(11): e1000242.
[2] Priem J,Taraborelli D,Groth P,et al.Altmetrics:A manifesto[EB/OL].[2015-04-15].http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
[3] Bornmann L.Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research？An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics[J].Journal of Informetrics,2014,8(4):895-903.
[4] Adie E,Roe W.Altmetric:Enriching scholarly content with article level discussion and metrics[J].Learned Publishing,2013,26(1):11-17.
[5] Roemer R C,Borchardt R.From bibliometrics to altmetrics: A changing scholarly landscape[J].College & Research Libraries News,2012,73(10):596-600.
[6] Galligan F,Dyas-Correia S.Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure[J].Serials Review,2013,39(1):56-61.
[7] Priem J,Piwowar H A,Hemminger B M.Altmetrics in the wild:Using social media to explore scholarly impact [EB/OL].[2015-05-21].http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics12/priem/.
[8] Bornmann L.Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from altmetric and F1000Prime[J].Journal of Informetrics,2014,8(4):935-950.
[9] Torres-Salinas D,Cabezas-Clavijo A,Jimenez-Contreras E.Altmetrics:New indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0[J].Comunicar,2013,21(41):53-60.
[10] Costas R,Zahedi Z,Wouters P.The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media:Large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations[J].Aslib Journal of Information Management,2015,67(3):260-288.
[11] Costas R,Zahedi Z,Wouters P.Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective[EB/OL].[2015-05-28].http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4321.
[12] Mohammadi E,Thelwall M.Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology,2014,65(8):1627-1638.
[13] Haunschild R,Bornmann L.F1000 prime:An analysis of discipline-specific reader data from Mendeley[EB/OL].[2015-07-05].http://f1000research.com/articles/4-41/v2.
[14] Mohammadi E,Thelwall M,Haustein S,et al.Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of mendeley user categories[EB/OL].[2015-06-28].http://www.academia.edu/6298635/Who_Reads_Research_Articles_An_Altmetrics_Analysis_of_Mendeley_User_Categories.
[15] Holmberg K,Thelwall M.Disciplinary differences in twitter scholarly communication[J].Scientometrics,2014,101(2):1027-1042.
[16] Mohammadi E, Thelwall M. Assessing the Mendeley readership of social sciences and humanities research[C]//Proceedings of ISSI: 14th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics . Vienna: University of Vienna and the AIT Austrian Institute of Technology,2013: 200-214.
[17] Li Xuemei, Thelwall M. F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators[C]//Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal,2012, 2: 451-551.
[18] 宋丽萍,王建芳,孙斌.相关性视角下的WoS与Scopus之比较[J].图书情报工作,2012,56(4): 22-26.
[19] 宋丽萍,王建芳,王树义.科学评价视角下F1000、Mendeley与传统文献计量指标的比较[J].中国图书馆学报,2014,40(4):48-54.
[20] 宋丽萍,陈巍,贺颖.论文层面科学评价实证研究——以PLoS ONE为例[J].图书馆工作与研究,2015 (7): 85-88.
[21] The Altmetric Explorer[EB/OL].[2015-03-06].http://www.altmetric.com/aboutexplorer.php.
[22] What does altmetric Do?[EB/OL].[2015-03-06].http://www.altmetric.com/aboutexplorer.php.
[23] Webometric analyst[EB/OL].[2015-03-07].http://lexiurl.wlv.ac.uk/.
[24] Liu Jean.New perspectives on article-level metrics:Developing ways to assess research uptake and impact online[J].UKSG Insights,2013,6(2):153-158.
[25] Torres-Salinas D,Cabezas-Clavijo A,Jiménez-Contreras E.Altmetrics:New indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0[J].Comunicar,2013,21(41):53-60.
[26] Thelwall M,Haustein S,Larivière V,et al.Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social Web services[J].PLoS ONE,2013,8(5):e64841.
[27] Mendeley[EB/OL].[2015-04-02].https://www.Mendeley.com/.
[28] Gephi[EB/OL].[2015-04-28].https://gephi.github.io/.
[29] De Winter J C F.The relationship between Tweets,citations,and articleviews for PLoS ONE articles[J].Scientometrics,2015,102(2):1773-1779.
[30] JAMIA[EB/OL].[2015-05-24].http://jamia.oxfordjournals.org/about.
[31] JASIST[EB/OL].[2015-05-24].http://www.asis.org/jasist.html.
[32] Wang Xianwen, Liu Chen, Mao Wenli,et al.The open access advantage considering citation,article usage and social media attention[J].Scientometrics,2015,103(2):555-564.
[33] Alperín J P.Geographic variation in social media metrics:An analysis of Latin American journal articles[J].Aslib Journal of Information Management,2015,67(3): 289-304.

图书情报领域文献的Altmetrics指标分析

Analysis of Altmetrics Indicators in the Field of Library and Information Science

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	孟凡, 黄文彬, 李孟阳. 文献老化的编码化表示及分析方法[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(15): 14-22.
[2]	赵蓉英, 朱伟杰, 常茹茹, 刘卓著. 话语权研究可视化分析：溯源、审视与演进[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(11): 4-13.
[3]	张硕, 汪雪锋, 乔亚丽, 刘玉琴. 技术预测研究现状、趋势及未来思考:数据分析视角[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(10): 4-18.
[4]	王铮, 张奕乐, 杨佳欣. 图书馆发展的“技术尺度”:基于涉图书馆专利的图书馆技术演进比较研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022, 66(10): 89-97.
[5]	刘春丽, 盛南洪, 马凤毛. “五计学”学科体系的完善与新发展——评《替代计量学理论、方法与应用》[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(5): 144-146.
[6]	魏佳文, 韩毅. 中文学术图书的Altmetrics数据生成动机及数据可用性探析——以豆瓣读书平台“短评”为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(2): 98-106.
[7]	高嵩, 张智雄, 丁颖. 不为繁华易匠心潜心钻研结硕果——孟连生在文献计量学和引文数据库建设方面的探索与影响[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(15): 22-29.
[8]	包鑫, 柯平. 访谈法在我国图书情报领域的应用探析——基于534篇文献的文献计量与内容分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(15): 71-77.
[9]	王旭. 中国学术期刊话语权评价理论框架建构研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(12): 83-92.
[10]	陈欣, 曹朝金, 叶春森, 汪传雷. 社会科学数据的创建和使用研究——二次匹配数据采集规则的应用[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021, 65(10): 90-104.
[11]	沈兰妮, 韩毅. 我国高校科研人员Altmetrics评价需求差异研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(23): 40-52.
[12]	张洋, 庞进京, 母丹. Altmetrics的形成与演进:理论假说、发展阶段及学科关系[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(23): 141-150.
[13]	王怡玫, 刘秀文. 独立第三方学科评价服务的方法与实践——以北京大学图书馆支持药学国际评估的评价分析为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(16): 29-35.
[14]	邱科达, 马建玲. 机器学习在术语抽取研究中的文献计量分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(14): 94-103.
[15]	刘小玲, 谭宗颖. 新兴技术主题识别方法研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(11): 145-152.