[目的/意义] 随着社交媒体和电子出版平台的兴起,利用期刊在Twitter上的关注度来评价期刊能够对传统的期刊评价方式进行补充,发现该指标与传统指标之间的相关性关系,并以期最终构建合理的期刊社交网络影响力评价指标。[方法/过程] 根据《期刊引用报告》(Journal Citation Reports,JCR)的社会科学版,选取国际图书情报学领域影响因子前30位的期刊作为该领域的国际顶级期刊。为了研究altmetrics指标与传统的基于引文的评价指标间的相关关系,利用Spearman非参数相关性分析对期刊Twitter提及频次与8个传统指标(总被引数、影响因子、5年期影响因子、即年指标、论文数、引文半衰期、特征因子和论文影响分值)之间的相关性进行分析。[结果/结论] 统计结果显示,JASIST、College & Research Libraries和Scientometrics是本领域中在Twitter上受关注度最高的期刊。期刊Twitter提及频次仅与期刊特征因子间存在中等的显著相关性,与其他指标间存在较弱的相关性。值得注意的是,相比其他期刊,在Twitter上设有官方账号的期刊明显得到更高的关注度。
[Purpose/significance] With the emergence of social media and electronic publication platforms, using the Twitter popularity to assess the social impact of a given journal can compensate the traditional measures. Revealing the relevance between the Twitter popularity and the traditional measures can help us to build proper measures to evaluate journal popularity on social media.[Method/process] Based on 2013 Journal Citation Reports (social science edition), 30 journals with high impact factors in the library and information science (LIS) field were identified as top-tier journals. To explore the association between the proposed altmetrics indicator and citation-based measures, Spearman's rho nonparametric correlation analysis was conducted to test the correlations between Twitter mentions and eight traditional measures (total cites, impact factor, five-year impact factor, immediacy index, articles, cited half-life, Eigenfactor score, and article influence score).[Result/conclusion] Through the investigation, the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), College & Research Libraries, and Scientometrics are the most prevalent LIS journals on Twitter. There is a significant and moderate correlation observed between Twitter mentions and the Eigenfactor score for the investigated journals. The results of this study supports the findings of previous studies, which indicates that the journal Twitter popularity may not measure the scientific impact as the citation-based measurements do. It is also shown that journals with official accounts have attained much more mentions than those without Twitter accounts.
[1] PRIEM J, PIWOWAR H A, HEMMINGER B M. Altmetrics in the wild:using social media to explore scholarly impact[EB/OL].[2015-06-27].http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745.
[2] CRONIN B, SUGIMOTO C R. Beyond bibliometrics:harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact[M]. Cambridge:The MIT Press,2014.
[3] ADIE E, ROE W. Altmetric:enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics[J]. Learned publishing,2013,26(1):11-17. http://doi.org/10.1087/20130103.
[4] PRIEM J, COSTELLO K L. How and why scholars cite on Twitter[EB/OL].[2015-06-27].http://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504701201.
[5] ZHAO Y, WOLFRAM D. Assessing the popularity of the top-tier journals in the LIS field on Twitter[EB/OL].[2016-03-26].http://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010092.
[6] LI X, THELWALL M, GIUSTINI D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement[J]. Scientometrics, 91(2):461-471. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x.
[7] EYSENBACH G. Can Tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact[J]. Journal of medical Internet research,2011,13(4), e123. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012.
[8] 邱均平,余厚强. 替代计量学的提出过程与研究进展[J].图书情报工作,2013,57(19):5-12.
[9] 邱均平,余厚强. 论推动替代计量学发展的若干基本问题[J].中国图书馆学报,2015,41(1):4-15.
[10] 余厚强,邱均平. 替代计量学视角下的在线科学交流新模式[J].图书情报工作,2014,58(15):42-47.
[11] 王妍, 郭舒, 张建勇. 学者影响力评价指标的相关性研究[J].图书情报工作,2015,59(5):106-127.
[12] 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.
[13] NISONGER T E, DAVIS C H. The perception of library and information science journals by LIS education deans and ARL library directors:a replication of the Kohl-Davis study[J]. College & research libraries,2005,66(4):341-377.
[14] AGUILLO I F, GRANADINO B, ORTEGA J L, et al. Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,2006,57(10):1296-1302. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20433.
[15] REY-ROCHA J, MARTÍN-SEMPERE M J, LOPEZ-VERA F, et al. English versus Spanish in science evaluation[J]. Nature, 397(6714):14. http://doi.org/10.1038/16132.
[16] KOHL D F, DAVIS C H. Ratings of journals by ARL library directors and deans of library and information science schools[J]. College and research libraries,1985,46(1):40-47.
[17] BLAKE V L P. The perceived prestige of professional journals, 1995:a replication of the Kohl-Davis study[J]. Education for information,1996,14(3), 157-79.
[18] KLEIJNEN J P C, VAN GROENENDAAL W. Measuring the quality of publications:new methodology and case study[J]. Information processing & management,2000,36(4):551-570. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00076-X.
[19] BAKER G, READ E J. Vendor-supplied usage data for electronic resources:a survey of academic libraries[J]. Learned publishing,2008,21(1):48-57. http://doi.org/10.1087/095315108X247276.
[20] HAUSTEIN S, SIEBENLIST T. Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage[J]. Journal of informetrics,2011,5(3):446-457. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.04.002.
[21] BAR-ILAN J, HAUSTEIN S, PETERS I,et al. Beyond citations:scholars' visibility on the social Web[EB/OL].[2015-06-27].http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5611.
[22] HAUSTEIN S, PETERS I, SUGIMOTO C R, et al. Tweeting biomedicine:an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014:65(4):656-669. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23101.
[23] COSTAS R, ZAHEDI Z, WOUTERS P. Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2014,66(10):2003-2019. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23309.
