[目的/意义] 研究Altmetrics指标的主要特征及其与传统文献计量指标的相关性，以及它们随时间的演化情况；同时，基于Altmetrics指标全面评价学术论文的社会影响力和学术影响力，对于发展和完善Altmetrics计量系统至关重要。[方法/过程] 以2014-2016年Altmetric Top 100论文为样本，对每年的高Altmetrics指标论文的来源期刊、学科分布、获取方式、作者地域及研究机构分布进行统计分析，并讨论这些论文的社会影响力，同时对论文的Altmetric分数与其Web of Science上的被引频次进行相关性分析，研究相关性随时间的动态演化。[结果/结论] 研究结果表明，高Altmetrics指标论文主要来源于一些高影响因子期刊，其学科主要集中于医疗健康与生物科学，论文作者主要来自于欧美发达国家的高水平研究机构，且高Altmetrics指标论文中开放及自由获取的比例逐年增加；Altmetric分数能够定量地反映学术论文在社交和新闻媒体上被公众关注的程度，从而在一定程度上体现出学术论文的社会影响力；高Altmetrics指标论文的Altmetric分数与其被引频次存在一定正相关，表明高Altmetrics指标论文同时具有较高的学术影响力。
[Purpose/significance] Investigating the main features and the correlation with conventional bibliometric indicators of Altmetrics, the variation of features and correlation with the time, and its comprehensive evaluation on both social and academic influences of academic papers are crucial for both development and improvement of Altmetrics.[Method/process] In this paper, we took Altmetric Top 100 papers from 2014 to 2016 as samples, analyzed their source journal, discipline category, access method and authors' affiliation, and further discussed their social influence. At the same time, we investigated the relationship between Altmetric scores of these Altmetric Top 100 papers and their citation counts from Web of Science, and the variation of such relationship with the time.[Result/conclusion] The results showed that most papers with high Altmetric scores are from high-profile journals with high impact factors, and are in fields of medical & health sciences and biological sciences. Most authors of these papers with high Altmetric scores are from the institutes with high research level in United States of America, United Kingdom and Germany. The fraction of free-accessed papers in the papers with high Altmetric scores increases annually. Altmetric score can quantitatively reflect the amount of attention that the social medias pay to the academic papers, which to some extent indicates the social influence of these academic papers. Altmetric scores of Altmetric Top 100 papers positively correlate their citation counts, implying that these papers with high Altmetric scores have significant academic influence.
[1] PRIEM J, TARABORELLI D, GROTH P, et al. Altmetrics:a manifesto[EB/OL].[26 October 2010]. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
[2] PIWOWAR H. Altmetrics:Value all research products[J]. Nature, 2013, 493(7431):159.
[3] 刘春丽. Web2.0环境下的科学计量学:选择性计量学[J]. 图书情报工作, 2012, 56(14):52-56.
[4] 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(9):5-12.
[5] 由庆斌, 汤珊红. 补充计量学及应用前景[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2013, 12(36):6-10.
[6] 陈铭. 期刊利用统计与Altmetrics的兴起[J]. 图书与情报, 2014, (1):12-17.
[7] EYSEBACH G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact[J]. Journal of mechanical Internet research, 2011, 13(4):1-20.
[8] LI X, THELWALL M, GIUSTINI D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(2):461-471.
[9] 刘春丽, 何钦成. 不同类型选择性计量指标评价论文相关性研究——基于Mendeley、F1000和GoogleScholar三种学术社交网络工具[J]. 情报学报, 2013, 32(2); 206-212.
[10] 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.
[11] 由庆斌, 汤珊红. 不同类型论文层面计量指标间的相关性研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2014, 58(8):79-84.
[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 and Technology, 2014, 65(8):1627-1638.
[13] 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, 2015, 66(10):2003-2019.
[14] 赵蓉英, 郭凤娇, 谭洁. 基于Altmetrics的学术论文影响力评价研究[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2016, 42(221):96-108.
[15] 王睿, 胡文静, 郭玮. 高Altmetrics指标科技论文学术影响力研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2014, 58(21):92-98.
[16] 邱均平, 张心源, 董克. Altmetrics指标在机构知识库中的应用研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(2):100-105.
[17] 郭飞, 游滨, 薛婧媛. Altmetrics热点论文传播特性及影响力分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(15):86-93.
[18] 匡登辉. 从Altmetrics热点论文看期刊影响力——以Altmetric.com Top 100论文为例[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2016, 27(11):1188-1194.
[19] 万昊, 谭宗颖, 朱相丽. 同行评议与文献计量在科研评价中的作用分析比较[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(1):134-152.
[20] 刘艳民. Altmetrics指标与传统文献计量指标相关性研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2017, 36(9):71-77.
[21] 黄文雅. 新型Altmetrics指标与传统学术评价指标相关性研究[D]. 合肥:中国科学技术大学, 2017.
[22] 黄晓. 基于论文层面计量的高被引论文Altmetrics指标研究[D]. 武汉:武汉大学, 2017.
[23] 余厚强. 替代计量指标与引文量相关性的大规模跨学科研究——数值类型、指标种类与用户类别的影响[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(6):606-617.
[24] 王雯霞, 刘春丽. 不同学科间论文影响力评价指标模型的差异性研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(13):108-116.
[25] HAUSCILD R, BORNMANN L. How many scientific papers are mentioned in policy related documents? An empirical investigation using Web of Science and Altmetric data[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 110(3):1209-1216.
